# Lakers vs. Blazers - who has more talent ?



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

These two teams are arguably the most stacked in the league right now, but who has the edge ? With the addition of Oden, Fernandez and Bayless the Blazers will bring in three very talented players to a team that is already on the upswing. The Lakers get a hopefully one hundred percent recovered Andrew Bynum back to their team next season.


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

It's close, but I give it to the Lakers right now because of Kobe. It might swing in Portland's direction though, depending on what they do with Lamar. It should be a great future rivalry though.


----------



## EGame (Mar 28, 2008)

Portland is my favorite team, however, until Kobe retires, goes to another team, or declines at all Lakers have the advantage. Both teams will be seeing each other in the playoffs in the future though that is for sure, but just because the Lakers have Kobe, never count out the Blazers against them. I can't remember the last time they actually beat us at home (granted they always beat us in LA).


----------



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

The Blazers I think are the most talented of the two.

Brandon Roy
Lamarcus Aldridge
Travis Outlaw
Greg Oden
Rudy Fernedez
Jerryd Bayless
Steve Blake

They should be competitive next season. I could see them making the playoffs as a 6 seed and giving a team like SA problems.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The Blazers are definitly more talented, but they don't have the experience that the Lakers have right now.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Kobe is the best player in the NBA, Portland doesn't have somebody on that level yet. Roy is a great player, but will never reach that status. Greg Oden could at some point, but nobody really knows where he's at right now considering nobody has seen him play an NBA game yet.

There's no doubt that Portland has better young talent, though. I would take Portlands young guys aaaaaaaaaaaaaaany day at aaaaaaaaaaaaaany time, hands down. The only thing even making this a discussion is Kobe and Bynum.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

On potential it's Portland.

Oden is supposed to better than Bynum
Aldridge is already better than Gasol
Outlaw isn't as good as Odom 
Roy isn't as good as Kobe
Bayless is supposed to better than Farmar

With the supposed to be's, that doesn't mean they are better right now, but that wasn't the question. The question was who has more talent, and Portland probably does...overall

With that being said the Lakers will be the better team for a couple of years


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

talent/potential = portland.

But LA is the better team no doubt.

But i'm a portland fan so i might be blinded, but i think that is a pretty fair assesment.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

to me, portland has more talent but they're not as good as the lakers... and i'm not so sold that portland is going to be a contender in the near future.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

I think top to bottom the Blazers have more raw talent, but the Lakers have Kobe who is easily the best player on either team and next season SHOULD (assuming that Bynum has fully recovered and can spend the offseason rounding himself back into form) have 2 of the best 3 players on either team. Unless Bynum's injury has caused considerable damage, I do not think Oden will be better than Bynum next season. 

3-4 years down the road, if Bayless and Oden pan out into what they're SUPPOSED to be, they will be the most stacked the NBA has seen in a very long time and would have a team with 4 all star caliber players including a superstar center on the Kobe/Lebron/Duncan/Garnett tier of players and a great mix of role players. It all really depends on Oden as to whether or not they are a middle of a pack western playoff team (ie. 50 win team), or a powerhouse. But it all depends on how Bayless and Oden in particular, pan out.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> On potential it's Portland.
> Aldridge is already better than Gasol


Gasol averaged more points, more rebounds, more assists, and shot a better FG% and FT% than Aldridge this past season.

Gasol has been doing this since 2001 and his past season was better than Aldridge's...there is simply no good reason for anyone to say at this point that LA is better than Pau.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I think that we have seen the Lakers exposed in the finals - if you play tough interior defense, have good inside-out offense and can contain Kobe - the Lakers without Bynum are exposed. They were lucky that Manu was wounded and the Spurs tired from a tough series against NO I think - or they would not have made it to the finals.

So, the question is - will Bynum come back from his injury to the level he was before it and how will he mash with Gasol/Odom. If they can do that - they will be a better team than Portland for the next couple of years, if not... we already saw that the no-Bynum version of the Lakers were only able to split the season series against an Oden-less version of the Blazers. 

I have said it after the Gasol trade that the entire LA dynasty thing is questionable at best. They have a window of 2 more years before Portland is really ready to dominate, imho. If they can't do it in the next couple of years...


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Gasol averaged more points, more rebounds, more assists, and shot a better FG% and FT% than Aldridge this past season.
> 
> Gasol has been doing this since 2001 and his past season was better than Aldridge's...there is simply no good reason for anyone to say at this point that LA is better than Pau.


Aldridge is a much better defender, though. I'll agree that Gasol edges him out at this point in Aldridge's career, but last year was his first year as a starter and he put up very impressive numbers. Aldridge is GOING to be a better all around player than Gasol IMO, but Gasol is better right now. 

However, if I'm being honest here, if I want to win THIS YEAR and I have to choose between the two. It's Aldridge, no hesitation. Weak D is for Weak Players.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Aldridge is just as soft as Gasol...Claiming that's he is a great defender is pretty laughable.He's not close to Gasol and he would be lucky to peak out at Gasol's averages.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Diable said:


> Aldridge is just as soft as Gasol...Claiming that's he is a great defender is pretty laughable.He's not close to Gasol and he would be lucky to peak out at Gasol's averages.


I absolutely disagree about that. We have seen the 4 head to head matches between LA and Portland this year and Aldridge out-played Gasol pretty much in each and every one of them. He is not as consistent as Gasol - not a surprise given the difference in their age and experience - but he is a much better pick and roll defender, he fights more than Gasol against other bigs (he is still moved around too much against the heavier players) and seems to be tougher than him playing the post. I expect him to fill-in and work on these issues as well while becoming more consistent and better offensively. I will be shocked if Aldridge is not a better player than Gasol in 2 years - as he is already pretty close on offense and slightly better overall on D.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Diable said:


> Aldridge is just as soft as Gasol...Claiming that's he is a great defender is pretty laughable.He's not close to Gasol and he would be lucky to peak out at Gasol's averages.


gasol averaged 18.9 and 8.4.
aldridge averaged 17.8 and 7.6.

but of course aldridge would be lucky to add just a single point and a single rebound to his averages at some point in the next 10 years of his career.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Lakers...how is this even a question? The OP didnt say "young promising talent", he said "talent"


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> Lakers...how is this even a question? The OP didnt say "young promising talent", he said "talent"


Talent and production are not one and the same. Young players are not consistent and will not always perform in the consistent manner you expect from veterans like Kobe, Pau and Fisher - but the talent is still there. All they need to do is learn to consistently implement it and use it - but the talent level on the Blazers is higher.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

In that case, every team in the league has buckets of "talent".


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> gasol averaged 18.9 and 8.4.
> aldridge averaged 17.8 and 7.6.
> 
> but of course aldridge would be lucky to add just a single point and a single rebound to his averages at some point in the next 10 years of his career.


First off Pau's actual *career* numbers are 18.8ppg 8.6reb. This is his avg for *7 years*.

LA *career* numbers are 13.8ppg 6.4reb in two years. If you want to ignore that because he played 10 less min per game as a rookie then lets look at Pau & LA's 2nd year where both players got virtually the same amount of playing time.

Pau 2nd year: 19ppg 8.8reb

LA 2nd year: 17.8ppg 7.6reb

LA has a way to go...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> First off Pau's actual *career* numbers are 18.8ppg 8.6reb. This is his avg for *7 years*.
> 
> LA *career* numbers are 13.8ppg 6.4reb in two years. If you want to ignore that because he played 10 less min per game as a rookie then lets look at Pau & LA's 2nd year where both players got virtually the same amount of playing time.
> 
> ...


he said in aldridge's prime that he would be lucky to match gasol's averages. gasol's averages this year are essentially the same as his career numbers, so he is saying the aldridge would be lucky to add one point and one rebound to his 2nd season's averages.

you can make a post about something entirely different and say aldridge has a long way until his career numbers match up if you want, but that isn't at all what i was responding to.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

andalusian said:


> Talent and production are not one and the same. Young players are not consistent and will not always perform in the consistent manner you expect from veterans like Kobe, Pau and Fisher - but the talent is still there. All they need to do is learn to consistently implement it and use it - but the talent level on the Blazers is higher.


So the Lakers got to the finals because of a bunch of veterans rather than talent? The talent level in POR is *100% NOT BETTER* than the Lakers talent. End of story. 

By your reasoning POR should have been in the finals but just happened to be inconsistent during the season...it doesnt work that way.

Edit...my last sentence is wrong. That argument is for this upcoming year, not last year.


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> So the Lakers got to the finals because of a bunch of veterans rather than talent? The talent level in POR is *100% NOT BETTER* than the Lakers talent. End of story.
> 
> By your reasoning POR should have been in the finals but just happened to be inconsistent during the season...it doesnt work that way.
> 
> Edit...my last sentence is wrong. That argument is for this upcoming year, not last year.


Travis Outlaw > Sasha Vujacic. And your argument goes out the window. The overall talent level in POR is, in fact, better than the Lakers' talent.

You are somewhat right with your 2nd point though. Talent alone won't get POR to the Finals. But, talent isn't all that gets production and, most importantly, wins. Execution (on both sides of the floor), consistency, *matchups*, *coaching*, along with talent gets you wins.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> So the Lakers got to the finals because of a bunch of veterans rather than talent? The talent level in POR is *100% NOT BETTER* than the Lakers talent. End of story.


Very talented veterans, no doubts. Kobe in his prime, probably the 2nd best player in the league after LeBron, Pau in his prime is consistent, Odom is very talented, no doubt.



DaRizzle said:


> By your reasoning POR should have been in the finals but just happened to be inconsistent during the season...it doesnt work that way.


First, I think that Aldridge is just as talented as Gasol (maybe more) but no-where near as consistent - so you do not get all the production out of him. we give Gasol and Aldridge the same imaginary talent points (let's give them both 100 talent points, for example), and you know that you get anywhere from 70-90 of these talent points every night from him, averaging at 80, and you get anywhere from 50-90 from Aldridge averaging at 70 - your production out of Gasol is higher even if the talent level is the same. Should not be so hard to understand. Add the fact that you got 0 out the 150 talent points that Oden has last year, and the same with most of the other youngsters on Portland and this is not really a surprise).

LA's best players last year were Kobe (Veteran, consistent), Pau (Veteran, consistent), Bynum (Youngster, inconsistent), Odom (Veteran, consistent) where on Portland it was Roy (youngster, semi-consistent), Aldridge (Youngster, inconsistent), Outlaw (youngster, inconsistent), someone-else (Jack/Pryzbilla/Jones/Webster) - inconsistent - and it is not a surprise that LA was a better team last year.



DaRizzle said:


> Edit...my last sentence is wrong. That argument is for this upcoming year, not last year.


I suspect that Oden is a lot more talented than Bynum - but I think coming back from injury and being a rookie - his production will probably be about as much as you get from Bynum (assuming that Bynum's injury has no long-term effects and that he can co-exist with Gasol and less touches). I expect Kobe to be an elite consistent player in the league for at least 2-3 more years, I expect Gasol to be the same and Odom as well. I expect Roy to be better next year than this and I expect Aldridge to be better as well - but a lot of the talent upgrade that Portland got for next year (Oden, Bayless, Fernandez) will take time to adjust because of age and experience.

It really is not something that should be surprising.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

You guys are making a pretty big deal about a 1 point and 1 more rebound a game, honestly.

Pau plays terrible D, LA plays average D (I like him as a defender, and he's still developing that part. But for the sake of this argument). 

It's really depressing to see everybody say LA isn't nearly as good because Pau has that one extra rebound, and that one extra point per game. LA played his first full season as a starter last year, there's no reason to think he can't improve.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

andalusian...So by your reasoning if you show great talent early in your career but dont do it on a consistent basis its ok because consistency will come with experience.....tell that to any fans of the team Lamar Odom has played on...seriously.
As for Bynum getting less touches because of Pau....no no no. If you watched Bynum last year you would see he barley got any plays called for him. He was getting his stats in spite of this. This upcoming year he will have more plays called for him in his NBA career.


----------



## Piolo_Pascual (Sep 13, 2006)

tough choice.


lakers are the better team but i have a feeling that if portland and la meets in the playoffs, blazers will take them down.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

talent = lakers
better team = lakers


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> andalusian...So by your reasoning if you show great talent early in your career but dont do it on a consistent basis its ok because consistency will come with experience.....tell that to any fans of the team Lamar Odom has played on...seriously.


I never said anything about it being OK - please do not put words in my mouth. We have seen some great talent players that never took advantage of their talent - and there is no excuse for this, imho. Portland had an awful lot of them - anything from Rasheed Walace who has, imho, Tim Duncan level talent but never realized it to Darius Miles.

I am telling you that I think the Blazers have more talent overall than the Lakers and I am telling you that I am OK with them taking their time to contend - since the team is so young and the best players are so young. I think that Portland, coming from a 32 win season, trading their most productive offensive player (a 20/10 guy in Randolph) and losing their big catch of Oden for the year has done wonderfully to finish .500 as the 3rd youngest team in league history. Of course, if you actually take older guys that did not play much or at all on this team - like Raef and Darius - it is hard not to be excited for the potential of this talent and appreciate the commitment of the organization and the players.

I truly think that the talent level on the team is high, I think that they have a good eye for talent and character in the management team and the coaching staff - so I expect great things from them if they are lucky enough to stay healthy. You might disagree, and that's OK, only time will tell - but my opinion is that this team has as much raw talent as just about any team in the league and they seem to do a good job of selecting players that are willing to commit and sacrifice to utilize this talent.

As I said - only time will tell - but the question was who has more talent - and in my opinion, it is the Blazers.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

K-Dub said:


> Travis Outlaw > Sasha Vujacic. And your argument goes out the window.


Wow, this is random. Even if true it proves nothing.

Blazers have more talent because they have Outlaw and the Lakers only have Sasha...right


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

andalusian said:


> First, I think that Aldridge is just as talented as Gasol (maybe more) but no-where near as consistent - so you do not get all the production out of him.


You cant have it both ways. Consistency is a part of "talent". Your going down the "Kingspeed" slippery slope. :biggrin:


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> Wow, this is random. Even if true it proves nothing.
> 
> Blazers have more talent because they have Outlaw and the Lakers only have Sasha...right


Clearly about the 100% Not Better part of your post. I like how you ignored the rest. :clap2:


----------



## Adol (Nov 25, 2004)

I have a bad feeling us Blazer fans are going to become insufferable. This needs to stop.


----------



## Drk Element (Nov 10, 2004)

I think the Blazers have more potential, but in terms of who has better talent, it's pretty even, but I think the Lakers take it.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

K-Dub said:


> Clearly about the 100% Not Better part of your post. I like how you ignored the rest. :clap2:


Well we are talkin team, not player vs player.

I didnt ignore the rest. What do want me to say? "Thank you for agreeing with me"...and coaching should have nothing to do with this argument. Talent is there before the coach comes


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

DaRizzle said:


> You cant have it both ways. Consistency is a part of "talent". Your going down the "Kingspeed" slippery slope. :biggrin:


Talent - Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.

Consistency - harmony of conduct or practice with profession 

I do not think they are one and the same nor do I find consistency to be a part of talent in the way I interpreted the question. You are free to disagree. 

What I do not know is if you have a talent to avoid the obvious or if you are just consistent in your insistence to try and rattle me from a pretty clear description of what I believe.. - either way, good for you, I think


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

DaRizzle said:


> Well we are talkin team, not player vs player.


Comparing team talent levels ultimately comes down to nothing but player vs. player. 


DaRizzle said:


> I didn't ignore the rest. What do want me to say? "Thank you for agreeing with me"...and coaching should have nothing to do with this argument. Talent is there before the coach comes


I think you missed the point. Production is what gets you wins. Coaching plays a large part in getting production out of the team, which is what I was addressing in a previous post.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

andalusian said:


> What I do not know is if you have a talent to avoid the obvious or if you are just consistent in your insistence to try and rattle me from a pretty clear description of what I believe.. - either way, good for you, I think


LOL :cheers:

K-Dub, you are too far out there for me to argue with you.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

consistency is definitely not a part of talent.. that's why a lot of talented players never make it. talent is physical, consistency is mental.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

So having the right mindset to perform each and every night doesnt factor into talent? If that was the case I could show you a lot of talented games by scrubs.


----------



## afobisme (Apr 29, 2006)

yeah it doesn't, that's why derrick coleman wasn't as good as everyone thought he would be.. or kwame brown, or stromile swift..

if they weren't "talented" they wouldn't have been drafted so high (kwame was no. 1 for god's sakes!)


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

DaRizzle we are just talking talent dude. Not who is better. Not who is more consistent. Not who is more experienced. Not who will be better next year, or in the future. We aren't talking potential. We are just talkin' straight talent.

Bayless, Roy, Fernandez, Outlaw, Webster, Aldridge, Frye, Oden is a pretty damn talented crew.

Fisher, Farmar, Bryant, Vujacic, Odom, Ariza, Radmonovic, Bynum, Gasol, Turiaf is very talented also. 

But i think that the Blazers have the edge in pure talent.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

afobisme said:


> yeah it doesn't, that's why derrick coleman wasn't as good as everyone thought he would be.. or kwame brown, or stromile swift..
> 
> if they weren't "talented" they wouldn't have been drafted so high (kwame was no. 1 for god's sakes!)


Derrick Coleman is the only person you listed that actually has talent on the basketball court.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I'll put it this way. In terms of realized talent, the Lakers are clearly ahead. They are title contenders while the Trailblazers won't be this year (unless they surprise a great, great deal).

In terms of expected talent, I think the Blazers are ahead. Oden, Fernandez, Bayless are all merely expected to play at certain levels in the NBA, but have not actually done it. In addition, none of the Blazers main players have finished developing.

Michael Jordan at age 18 was more "talented" than Reggie Theus, but he certainly wasn't better than Theus, who was an established and very good NBA shooting guard while Jordan was just finishing high school.

In that sense, the Lakers are better, the Blazers are more talented. At least, it seems that way. It remains to be seen if the Blazers realize all of that talent.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

I think it's fair to say that Portland has more potential talent than the current Lakers team.

I think it's fair to say that at the moment the Lakers have far more proven talent than Portland.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

I like the Lakers established talent for the next couple years more than the potential of the Blazers talent. I firmly believe LA is the favorite to win the championship the next 3 seasons. They got very far this year with a key player missing, adding Bynum back will put them over the top. 

Portland will be contenders for a very long time if this group stays together. The pieces that the Blazers have is crazy. They're all so young too, which makes them even scarier. If they all pan out like everyone seems to think, Paul Allen will spend whatever it takes to keep these guys together. Imagine this squad 5 years from now and how awesome they can be, and they'll only be in their early to mid twenties! Portland has me shook.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the older you are, the less upside you have. the blazers haven't, for the most part, showed the limitations of their talent. take an odom - we assess his talent today in the context of the player he is, not based on the potential he showed when he first came into the league. gasol's ceiling has also pretty much been established, as well as his weaknesses. if all of the blazers realize their full potential as we see it today, they'll be the more talented team. but their talent also has alot more question marks as of today. 

both teams have bright futures, and they should be rivals for years.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

well on talent it is clearly the blazers, although kobe is the best player in the nba, i am looking at it in quantity AND quality.

i mean on talent alone, doesnt atlanta deserve to be in the conversation?


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

I like Lakers current squad, but in a few years, I think Portland wins this argument against ANY team in the NBA. I don't agree with HallOfFamer with the fact that Lakers will be favourites for the next 3 years.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Blazers clearly. Lakers really aren't that talented.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

King George said:


> Blazers clearly. Lakers really aren't that talented.


Oh joy...So are you just a hater or amazingly uninformed?


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

DaRizzle said:


> Oh joy...So are you just a hater or amazingly uninformed?


Outside of Kobe, Odom, Gasol and Bynum who possesses any real talent? And outside of Kobe none of those guys are night in and night out considered better than the guy opposite them. Bynum may become that seeing how weak the center position has become but Odom will never achieve that, Gasol is iffy and none of the bench mobb will ever amount to anything. That's just the truth.


Not saying the Blazers players are better than anyone but they at least have the potential to be and a better collection of talent than L.A. has


----------



## stojakovic (Nov 3, 2007)

pistons...by far.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

King George said:


> Outside of Kobe, Odom, Gasol and Bynum who possesses any real talent?


Heh, outside of the team's four best players, who's all that impressive?

That's not a very good argument. The best teams are generally top-heavy. Your top player has the most impact on the team's fortunes, and your top several players are the biggest factors in how well your team does. You want your talent concentrated in as few players as possible (by and large).

Having four good to great players, one of them arguably the best player in the game, *is* being very talented. And LA has the requisite role-players to play defense and shoot open shots.


----------



## King George (Jun 21, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Heh, outside of the team's four best players, who's all that impressive?
> 
> That's not a very good argument. The best teams are generally top-heavy. Your top player has the most impact on the team's fortunes, and your top several players are the biggest factors in how well your team does. You want your talent concentrated in as few players as possible (by and large).
> 
> Having four good to great players, one of them arguably the best player in the game, *is* being very talented. And LA has the requisite role-players to play defense and shoot open shots.


Generally top heavy, but we haven't seen Bynum for a full season, Odom is inconsistent and will never ever be elite, Gasol is too feminine. He's solid but not great. I don't really see them being more talented than any team outside of Kobe. IMO, Howard & Lewis, Turkaglo are better. And that bench's defense is overrated, it's almost not existant in all reality.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I don't know, but I can't wait 'til they tip off opening night in P-Town!


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

If I have five dollars in hand, but it's possible that my buddy might be able to collect ten dollars next week. Who has more money? Sorry my Blazer brethren, theoretical dollars don't stack up to cash in hand.

Because so much of Portland's "talent" is still locked up in that dreaded stage called "potential". The Lakers are clearly the better, more seasoned team and have one of the top ten players of all time on their squad -- and it's no contest; until Oden, Bayless and Fernandez lace 'em up and step on the court this question is incredibly premature. I think the Lakers are legit title favorites for at least the next two years, and thereafter they are still going to be the yardstick against which the Blazers measure their success.

A better poll question might have been which team has the highest ceiling


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

The Lakers are more talented now. The Blazers have potential to be more talented.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

The question isn't "which team is better?", it's "which team has more talent?" and the Blazers have more overall talent hands down. No contest.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Overall talent, Portland. Overall potential talent, Portland..top end of the team talent? Lakers (Kobe).

I wouldn't switch rosters, but I fully suspect a lot of Laker fans would say the same.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

and the horse continues to follow the cart...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Dornado said:


> and the horse continues to follow the cart...


And it just shows to go you, I'll see it when I believe it!


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Who cares who has more "talent"? Production is all that matters.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Until Portland gets a player as good as Kobe Bryant, this is not a realistic comparison.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> Until Portland gets a player as good as Kobe Bryant, this is not a realistic comparison.


boston didn't have a player as good as kobe. things seemed to turn out alright for them.

and why did someone bring this thread back?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> boston didn't have a player as good as kobe. things seemed to turn out alright for them.


1.) Totally unrelated to the thread.

2.) Last I looked, I considered Kevin Garnett in Kobe Byrant's class and I would consider Paul Pierce a step behind, so I have no idea where you're getting that idea.

3.) Last I looked, basketball was a team sport so one player doesn't win or lose all by himself.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Blazers are still getting grossly overrated, and this thread even existing is evidence.

And besides, how the hell are you going to measure "talent"? That's bull**** because nobody can do it. All you can do is make a biased guess. The only thing that matters is who is ACTUALLY better, and that's the Lakers. All Portland has to go by is that unpredictable p-word. Having potential doesn't even come close to measuring up to an NBA finals appearance.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

I agree. The thing with Portland is that it's a team more about projection than production. Brandon Roy is a fine player, but he's not in Kobe Bryant's class. LaMarcus Aldridge looks like a Pau Gasol-caliber player, but he still needs seasoning.

Other than that ... it's merely projection. Greg Oden never showed me much fire in his belly when he was at Ohio State. Jerryd Bayless looks like a scoring point guard, a la Gilbert Arenas. Moreover, we're looking at them as college players because they have yet to play in the NBA.

Personally, I feel Utah has a better mix than Portland. It's a young team but with more experience and proven players who have established, defined roles.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

As a Blazer homer, I really want to say the Blazers have more talent. However, talent doesn't mean a lot.

Darius Miles had a ton of talent but little heart. 

As of now, the Lakers have more proven talent (with Kobe, you've got incredible proven talent). The Blazers have lots of potential but until that potential is realized, the Lakers are, IMO, unquestionably the better team.

It is my hope that the Blazers will move into the Lakers neighborhood in the next couple years and then become a dynasty. Being a Blazer homer I am optimistic about such be being objective and having gone through disappointments in the past, I also temper my optimism with a dose of caution/skepticism.

Gramps...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> 1.) Totally unrelated to the thread.
> 
> 2.) Last I looked, I considered Kevin Garnett in Kobe Byrant's class and I would consider Paul Pierce a step behind, so I have no idea where you're getting that idea.
> 
> 3.) Last I looked, basketball was a team sport so one player doesn't win or lose all by himself.


1. not totally unrelated to the point you made.

2. kobe bryant is generally regarded as the best player(or 1a and 1b with lebron) in the league.

3. exactly. that kinda goes against your thought that the blazers have to have a player on kobe's level to be in this conversation.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

There are so many ambiguities. Even if we distinguish between "production" and "talent", we are still left with the "proven" vs. "potential" issue. Personally, I tend to discount for potential when I think of talent, but I do not discount it down to proven talent (giving NO credit for potential). These two axes are really going to determine the outcome of this question for most.

Another issue, though, is how one weights the question. If one team had the top three talents, and then the other team had the next ten, and then they shared the talent through the rest of their rosters... how would one weigh that? A team can only play 240 minutes a game, and if the top three talents play fully half those minutes (40 a piece)... doesn't that bring their team up a bit?

In lieu of that minute weighting, though, I'm gonna list the two rosters, going head-to-head with MY estimation of the most talented, 1-12, of each of the two rosters. Each head-to-head matchup will have one of five outcomes: -2, -1, 0, 1, or 2, with 0 = a draw and |2| = a blowout in talent.

I'm sure every single reader will disagree with the majority of my analysis (and most will question the methodology), but here we go.

1. Kobe Bryant v. Greg Oden: Lakers +1
2. Lamar Odom v. Brandon Roy: Even
3. Pau Gasol v. LaMarcus Aldridge: Even
4. Andrew Bynum v. Travis Outlaw: Lakers +1
5. Vladimir Radmanovic v. Rudy Fernandez: Blazers +1
6. Trevor Ariza v. Jerryd Bayless: Blazers +1
7. Jordan Farmar v. Martell Webster: Even
8. Derek Fisher v. Channing Frye: Blazers +1
9. Sasha Vujacic v. Joel Przybilla: Even
10. Luke Walton v. Nicholas Batum: Blazers +1
11. Chris Mihm v. Sergio Rodriguez: Blazers +1
12. ?? v. Steve Blake: Even

Overall: *Blazers +3*.

Going back to giving results weight, the Blazers "win" spots 10 and 11 with guys who will probably not play too much this year, but I still see as more "talented" than the guys they were matched up again.

The Kobe/Oden matchup was rough for me... I think Kobe is one of the best two or three players in the NBA, but Oden is the best center prospect since Shaq (with the possible exception of Duncan) and it's because of what everyone on the planets sees: his incredible talent. That keeps the Laker edge there to merely +1.

Also, you can see how I, at least, judge "talent" given where I ranked Ariza and Walton, respectively.

I voted for the Blazers.

Ed O.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I would say the Trail Blazers are the more talented team simply because they are 10 deep after that they have Ike Diogu and Batum (who would get playing time on some teams) and even more potential rotation players overseas. 
The 2nd team of
Bayless
Fernandez
Outlaw
Frye 
Pryzbilla 

could make the playoffs in the east. 

The thing is only five players can run at the same time however if the Lakers and the Blazers squared off in the playoffs next year and both teams had a major player out with injury it would certainly be a greater burden to the Lakes


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

This talk about "talent" reminds me of a piece of a SLAM issue...
It was about two youngsters in the Clippers squad promissing to "take the NBA by storm"...
Names? Darius Miles and Questin Richardson.
Where the **** are they now?


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> In terms of expected talent, I think the Blazers are ahead. Oden, Fernandez, Bayless are all merely expected to play at certain levels in the NBA, but have not actually done it. In addition, none of the Blazers main players have finished developing.
> 
> Michael Jordan at age 18 was more "talented" than Reggie Theus, but he certainly wasn't better than Theus, who was an established and very good NBA shooting guard while Jordan was just finishing high school.
> 
> In that sense, the Lakers are better, the Blazers are more talented. At least, it seems that way. It remains to be seen if the Blazers realize all of that talent.


Yeah, I see where your coming from. I think this is a great point.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Ed O said:


> 1. Kobe Bryant v. Greg Oden: Lakers +1
> 2. Lamar Odom v. Brandon Roy: Even
> 3. Pau Gasol v. LaMarcus Aldridge: Even
> 4. Andrew Bynum v. Travis Outlaw: Lakers +1
> ...



This has got to be one of the most bizzare measures of talent I've ever seen.

And by the way, some of your selections on this list are ridiculous. You'd rather have Channing Frye over Derek Fisher? And Rudy Fernandez - a guy that's never even played an NBA game over Vladimir Radmanovic? And Nicholas Batum?

This list is laughable, at best. Kobe Bryant is so much better than anybody on the Blazers' roster, it's ridiculous. Let's make that acknowledgement before we start comparing anything.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> This list is laughable, at best. Kobe Bryant is so much better than anybody on the Blazers' roster, it's ridiculous. Let's make that acknowledgement before we start comparing anything.


kobe is definitely better than anyone on the blazers roster but not so much so that it's ridiculous.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Najee said:


> Personally, I feel Utah has a better mix than Portland. It's a young team but with more experience and proven players who have established, defined roles.


Utah SHOULD be more established. They're considerably older than Portland. Looking at the top 20 players of the two teams (8 top minutes played from Utah last year with Koufas) and, projected (as by me) top 10 for Portland this season) and how old they are today:

Harpring = 32
Collins = 29
Okur = 29
Przybilla = 28 
Blake = 28
Kirilenko = 27
Korver = 27
Boozer = 26
Frye = 25
Williams = 24
Roy = 24
Outlaw = 23
Millsap = 23
Brewer = 23
Fernandez = 23
Aldridge = 22
Webster = 21
Oden = 20
Bayless = 19
Koufos = 19

Portland's average years of age in these two 10 player groups is 23.3, while Utah's is 25.9. Utah SHOULD be more advanced and established... they are simply an older team.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> This has got to be one of the most bizzare measures of talent I've ever seen.


It's "bizarre". Good try, though. Let's look at the rest of your post and see if it is better than the first sentence.



> You'd rather have Channing Frye over Derek Fisher?


Would I? Where did I say that? All I'm doing is comparing talent, and the nearly 34 year-old Fisher is not, for all his strengths, a talented player. Certainly not along the lines of a near seven-foot lottery pick from a couple of years ago.



> And Rudy Fernandez - a guy that's never even played an NBA game over Vladimir Radmanovic?


I know it's amazing, but sometimes players can be good even if they haven't played in the NBA... it's why there's a draft each and every year. Further, and more to the point, talent and playing in an NBA game are not really that closely related.



> And Nicholas Batum?


I know... it's shocking that I would consider the 19 year-old European phenom a superior talent to the incredibly gifted and awe-inspiringly talented Luke Walton. Or maybe it's laughable?

Or bizzare?



> This list is laughable, at best. Kobe Bryant is so much better than anybody on the Blazers' roster, it's ridiculous. Let's make that acknowledgement before we start comparing anything.


You seem unwilling (or maybe incapable?) of recognizing the differences between a player being talented and a player being good. As my caveats (look it up) at the beginning of my post indicated, I recognize talent can be defined different ways. I tried to explain how *I* defined it, and I'm not criticizing anyone for disagreeing with me based on different definitions.

Ed O.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Utah SHOULD be more established. They're considerably older than Portland. ...
> 
> Portland's average years of age in these two 10 player groups is 23.3, while Utah's is 25.9. Utah SHOULD be more advanced and established... they are simply an older team.


Wow, Utah sure is an "old" team -- an average of a whopping two years older than Portland (and that can be attributed at least partly to Matt Harpring). It still doesn't account for the fact the Jazz already have seen the Western Conference finals in 2006-07 and that Carlos Boozer is 26 and Deron Williams is 24.

Portland really only has two players who are proven (Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) and they aren't as good as Williams and Boozer. Virtually everyone else on the Blazers are unproven or scrubs.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> Portland really only has two players who are proven (Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) and they aren't as good as Williams and Boozer. Virtually everyone else on the Blazers are unproven or scrubs.


the blazers have 3 players in their 10 man rotation that are unproven. one is the best prospect to enter the league since lebron and would have been the top pick in the draft since his junior year of high school(oden). another has skills that are perfectly complimented by roy and should immediately at least be able to hit shots and score points from the pg position(bayless). the other is one of the top talents in europe that would have been a lottery pick if in the draft this year(rudy).

other than that, everyone is proven. roy was an all star. aldridge was essentially at pau gasol's level his rookie season. blake, joel, webster, outlaw, and frye are all proven as good role players. those guys aren't scrubs. none of them should be depended on to lead a team but they are all valuable in the roles they play.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Najee said:


> Portland really only has two players who are proven (Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) and they aren't as good as Williams and Boozer. Virtually everyone else on the Blazers are unproven or scrubs.


However, talent doesn't have to be proven to have value. That's why a freshly drafted LeBron James, Chris Paul or Greg Oden has a ton of value.

The question was "talent" not "currently established success." If it was the second, there was no need for a thread, you can simply consult the standings. Answering the first question requires placing subjective value on unproven talent. 

Oden, Fernandez and Bayless are all considered good to great talents (varyingly for each one). Roy and Aldridge are proven to some extent and have unproven potential remaining. How you weigh that determines how they compare to Kobe Bryant (proven as one of the top few players in the league), Gasol and Odom (proven as good players in the league), Radmanovich, Walton and Vujacic (proven as decent players in the league) and Bynum (slightly proven, mostly unproven talent). For the Lakers side, only Bynum has any significant upside. 

Those wide differences in the make-up of each team's talent is why the Lakers are much better right now (most of their talent is established) and why the question is far from simple. There's a massive subjective element to this.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> the blazers have 3 players in their 10 man rotation that are unproven. one is the best prospect to enter the league since lebron and would have been the top pick in the draft since his junior year of high school(oden).


It's a projection, and given what I have seen of Greg Oden he is going to have to play with a lot more fire in his belly than what I saw at Ohio State. There were times he was so lackadaisical to where he spent games in foul trouble and not a factor.



rocketeer said:


> another has skills that are perfectly complimented by roy and should immediately at least be able to hit shots and score points from the pg position(bayless).


Again, projection instead of production. Jerryd Bayless will have to show more point guard skills than what he showed at Arizona and he is going to have to involve his teammates better.



rocketeer said:


> blake, joel, webster, outlaw, and frye are all proven as good role players. those guys aren't scrubs. none of them should be depended on to lead a team but they are all valuable in the roles they play.


You may feel scrubs is too strong of a word, but most of those guys couldn't start on most NBA teams. The whole point, again, is production. Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge are the only players on the Blazers right now who have shown they can be a good producer overall. Your whole case is pegged on two players who have yet to play in the NBA (including one who didn't play at all after being drafted in 2007).


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Minstrel said:


> The question was "talent" not "currently established success." If it was the second, there was no need for a thread, you can simply consult the standings. Answering the first question requires placing subjective value on unproven talent.


The problem I have is the bulk of the talent in question at Portland is unproven and/or mostly raw. There are too many "what ifs" and projections on players who have yet to play in the NBA or haven't developed enough to show they can play together as a unit (particularly now with the addition of Greg Oden and Jerryd Bayless). 

If you want to apply the "talent" tag on Portland, at least wait to see these guys play in the NBA and play together. There have been too many instances in recent NBA history where these "talent" teams are praised for looking good on paper (largely by draft projections and raving fanboys) and haven't come close to coming through.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> 3. exactly. that kinda goes against your thought that the blazers have to have a player on kobe's level to be in this conversation.


The bottom line is this a question of talent, and Kobe Byrant tilts this comparison in the Los Angeles Lakers' favor. The bulk of Portland's unit has yet to develop and with the exception of Brandon Roy and (to a degree) LaMarcus Aldridge it's unproven. 

I feel you have taking "talent" and "potential" as to mean the same thing when in this case they really aren't.


----------



## EGame (Mar 28, 2008)

I am still laughing at Roy being called scrub (and even LaMarcus for that matter, but Roy is the much better player). No he is not the second coming of Jesus and it is very arguable whether he is a top 10 or 15 SG or whatever. Someone who made the All-Star team is now termed a "scrub?" So for people who didn't make it like Deron Williams, Manu Ginobli, Baron Davis, etc, are they all scrubs too? That is ridiculous.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> The bottom line is this a question of talent, and Kobe Byrant tilts this comparison in the Los Angeles Lakers' favor. The bulk of Portland's unit has yet to develop and with the exception of Brandon Roy and (to a degree) LaMarcus Aldridge it's unproven.
> 
> I feel you have taking "talent" and "potential" as to mean the same thing when in this case they really aren't.


kobe bryant is just one player. having him is huge for the talent level of the lakers but having him does not mean they win any talent comparison.

and no talent and potential are not exactly the same. if we're talking potential this portland team blows the lakers out of the water.


----------



## nets1fan102290 (Apr 16, 2007)

are you kidding me the lakers have more talent trailblazers have the potential of being more talented but what have they proven so far besides that winning streak


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

EGame said:


> I am still laughing at Roy being called scrub (and even LaMarcus for that matter, but Roy is the much better player). No he is not the second coming of Jesus and it is very arguable whether he is a top 10 or 15 SG or whatever. Someone who made the All-Star team is now termed a "scrub?" So for people who didn't make it like Deron Williams, Manu Ginobli, Baron Davis, etc, are they all scrubs too? That is ridiculous.


he's calling the players other than roy and aldridge scrubs. he's calling outlaw, webster, blake, frye, and joel scrubs.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> he's calling the players other than roy and aldridge scrubs. he's calling outlaw, webster, blake, frye, and joel scrubs.


Let's clarify this: Travis Outlaw, Martrell Webster and Channing Frye have not shown me that they could start for most teams in the NBA. A lot of that is because they still haven't developed, but right now they are reserves on most teams.

Steve Blake is a career backup. Joel Pryzbilla, for all intents and purposes, is a scrub. This is as good as it gets for those two.

I really don't feel I need to go back to the days when the Los Angeles Clippers had Elton Brand, Lamar Odom, Andre Miller, Quintin Richardson, Michael Olowokandi and Corey Maggette on the same team to show you there is a difference between what's on paper (projection) and actual performance. Before we start with all the proclamations for Portland, let's actually see them play together and/or develop.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

EGame said:


> I am still laughing at Roy being called scrub (and even LaMarcus for that matter, but Roy is the much better player). No he is not the second coming of Jesus and it is very arguable whether he is a top 10 or 15 SG or whatever. Someone who made the All-Star team is now termed a "scrub?" So for people who didn't make it like Deron Williams, Manu Ginobli, Baron Davis, etc, are they all scrubs too? That is ridiculous.


You may want to read what I actually said:



Najee said:


> Portland really only has two players who are proven (Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) and they aren't as good as Williams and Boozer. Virtually everyone else on the Blazers are unproven or scrubs.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> Let's clarify this: Travis Outlaw, Martrell Webster and Channing Frye have not shown me that they could start for most teams in the NBA. A lot of that is because they still haven't developed, but right now they are reserves on most teams.
> 
> Steve Blake is a career backup. Joel Pryzbila, for all intents and purposes, is a scrub. This is as good as it gets for those two.


travis outlaw was one of the better bench players in the league last season. he definitely could start for many teams in the league. webster is a good spot up shooter. channing frye is a good backup big. it doesn't matter whether they start for other teams or not. they are talented players that fit well in the roles they are needed to play. steve blake is a career backup who, guess what, has started more than half the games he's played in the nba. he's not a scrub he's a role playing pg who runs the offense, takes care of the ball, and hits shots when left open. joel isn't a scrub either, rather he's a top 5 backup center in the league. he doesn't score but he plays good defense and rebounds the ball very well.

it's funny that you're saying it's not how they look at paper and the talent that matters it's how they play together when the blazers are a team of players who perfectly fit together. blake is a great fit next to roy and a perfect pg to have while grooming a young guard(which in this case could be either bayless or rudy). webster isn't a great player but he can help spread the floor and make a good percentage of his 3s. outlaw is a good bench player and can be a focal point of the offense when starters are resting. frye is a poor man's aldridge. joel is a defense and rebounding big for a team that has other guys to score. how do you not see how those guys fit with the team?

and really, if all these guys are scrubs, what about the lakers? you must consider fisher, turiaf, radmanovic, vujacic, etc to all be horrible scrubs as well right? pretty much anyone that is not a star player is a scrub?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

For starters, it would help if you actually read what I originally said. I said that Portland's team (save for Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) right now is virtually unproven or scrubs (and the only player I identified as a scrub is Joel Pryzbilla).

Travis Outlaw made a big jump from his previous three seasons, but it's a stretch to say he could start for a lot of teams in the NBA. As it is, he only started six games for a .500 team so I'll have to ask you to name the teams for whom you feel he could supplant that team's starting small forward.

The fact that Steve Blake started 78 games for Portland is more a testament of Portland's struggling point guard situation than his talent. If that wasn't the case, Portland wouldn't made a trade for the rights to Jerryd Bayless. 

Before that, Blake started 57 games for a Blazers team that won 21 games in 2005-06 in his first tour of duty. He started 40 games for Denver in 2006-07, but given the alternatives (and the team was better off with Allen Iverson playing off the ball), that's not saying much.

One of the many things you keep missing is that Portland is now retooling its team with (presumably) a new starting center and a starting point guard, arguably the most critical positions. We have to see how the current team will mesh with the new players and see what kind of chemistry they will have on the court. 

I would like to see them play together (and in the case of Greg Oden and Jerryd Bayless, play) before making that proclamation they have better "talent" than a team that went to the NBA Finals featuring one of the best players in the NBA and two players who are at least comparable to Portland's second-best player (and slightly behind the Blazers' best player).


----------



## Baracuda (Jan 10, 2007)

Najee said:


> *Until Portland gets a player as good as Kobe Bryant, this is not a realistic comparison.*





Najee said:


> 1.) Totally unrelated to the thread.
> 
> 2.) Last I looked, I considered Kevin Garnett in Kobe Byrant's class and I would consider Paul Pierce a step behind, so I have no idea where you're getting that idea.
> 
> 3.) *Last I looked, basketball was a team sport so one player doesn't win or lose all by himself.*


Hmm?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

You may want to add Rokceteer's response so there is a full context to my statement, not just a pick-and-choose moment to try to slant my position.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Kobe Bryant is so much better than anybody on the Blazers' roster, it's ridiculous. Let's make that acknowledgement before we start comparing anything.



It is tough to have a discussion with somebody who clearly doesn't understand what is being discussed. 

NOBODY asked which team is BETTER. NOBODY asked which team had the better player. You obviously can't distinguish between talent and and how good a player is. 

Reggie Miller was a better player (or at least almost as good) than Lebron when Lebron entered the league. Was Reggie more talented than Lebron? I hope you say no. 

Let's make the acknowledgement of what is being discussed before was start comparing anything.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> Let's clarify this: Travis Outlaw, Martrell Webster and Channing Frye have not shown me that they could start for most teams in the NBA. A lot of that is because they still haven't developed, but right now they are reserves on most teams.
> 
> Steve Blake is a career backup. Joel Pryzbilla, for all intents and purposes, is a scrub. This is as good as it gets for those two.
> 
> I really don't feel I need to go back to the days when the Los Angeles Clippers had Elton Brand, Lamar Odom, Andre Miller, Quintin Richardson, Michael Olowokandi and Corey Maggette on the same team to show you there is a difference between what's on paper (projection) and actual performance. Before we start with all the proclamations for Portland, let's actually see them play together and/or develop.


You have to be joking. Joel Przybilla is a solid defensive anchor. Top notch rebounder, takes charges, blocks and alters shots. He's not a scrub by any means.

I also disagree with Outlaw. I think he could start on several teams. 6'9 with elite athleticism and a very good jumper with range.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

bballlife said:


> You have to be joking. Joel Przybilla is a solid defensive anchor. Top notch rebounder, takes charges, blocks and alters shots. He's not a scrub by any means.
> 
> I also disagree with Outlaw. I think he could start on several teams. 6'9 with elite athleticism and a very good jumper with range.


I guess it goes by your definition of "scrub." If you're describing a seven-footer who will never be a starter in a big man-starved NBA and whose career path is more in line with a poor man's Tree Rollins, then that sounds like a scrub to me.

Rocketeer said that Travis Outlaw could start for a lot of teams and I challenged him to list the teams where he could supplant their current starting small forward. Not "some" teams.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Najee said:


> I guess it goes by your definition of "scrub." If you're describing a seven-footer who will never be a starter in a big man-starved NBA and whose career path is more in line with a poor man's Tree Rollins, then that sounds like a scrub to me.


What are you talking about? Joel has already been a starter in the NBA for several years. If the above is your definition of a scrub, then Joel is far from a scrub.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> Rocketeer said that Travis Outlaw could start for a lot of teams and I challenged him to list the teams where he could supplant their current starting small forward. Not "some" teams.


clippers, suns, hornets, spurs, twolves, sonics(if they want to keep playing durant out of position), nets, knicks, sixers, raptors, magic, and wizards.

is that enough for you?

and really it doesn't even matter. all guys that come over the bench are not scrubs. scrubs are end of the bench players. outlaw was one of the better guys coming off the bench in the league last season.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

blazerboy said:


> What are you talking about? Joel has already been a starter in the NBA for several years. If the above is your definition of a scrub, then Joel is far from a scrub.


Joel Przybilla started for some teams only because they were that weak on the frontline; that's different from being "a quality starter." For instance, in Milwaukee in 2001-02, he was the _de facto_ starting center for a team built around the talents of Ray Allen, Sam Cassell and Glenn Robinson. Despite starting 62 games, he averaged less than 16 minutes per game and he rarely made an impact.

If your barometer for not being a scrub is a player akin to Will Perdue, then I guess Przybilla is not a scrub. But considering this is the same Web site where members actually consider Shawn Marion a role player and Christian Laettner a scrub, it just shows there is some very bizarre logic applied here.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> I guess it goes by your definition of "scrub." If you're describing a seven-footer who will never be a starter in a big man-starved NBA and whose career path is more in line with a poor man's Tree Rollins, then that sounds like a scrub to me.
> 
> Rocketeer said that Travis Outlaw could start for a lot of teams and I challenged him to list the teams where he could supplant their current starting small forward. Not "some" teams.



You're cutting Przbilla short. He has started 300+ games in his career, and although he might be somewhat challenged offensively, he is very effective on defense. He could start for a few teams, like Memphis and Miami. 


Outlaw would likely start for the Lakers, Timberwolves, Spurs, Sonics, Knicks, Clippers, Nets, and probably Phoenix.

Clarification. Only if the Lakers continued to start Radmanovic.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I think scrub implies little or no value. End of the bench.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> clippers, suns, hornets, spurs, twolves, sonics(if they want to keep playing durant out of position), nets, knicks, sixers, raptors, magic, and wizards.


I'm assuming you're talking about this past season.

There is no way Travis Outlaw would start over Rashard Lewis or Hedo Turkoglu in Orlando.

Outlaw would start in Philadelphia only if Andre Iguodala is moved to shooting guard (Iguodala started at small forward largely for the Sixers).

I doubt Outlaw would have started over Grant Hill.

Excuse me, but didn't Caron Butler start at small forward for Washington? And Corey Maggette for the L.A. Clippers?

I can't say I can see Outlaw starting in San Antonio over Bruce Bowen (it's a matter of talent, but a matter of Bowen fitting a particular role for the Spurs).

Outlaw may start at New Jersey NOW, but he would have been on the bench when Richard Jefferson was there.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

bballlife said:


> You're cutting Przbilla short. He has started 300+ games in his career, and although he might be somewhat challenged offensively, he is very effective on defense. He could start for a few teams, like Memphis and Miami.


So was Tree Rollins (and I would say Tree was better defensively), and that still doesn't remove him from being called a scrub, IMO. Joel Przybilla is no different from players like Tree, Alton Lister, Ervin (No Magic) Johnson, Olden Polynice, etc. -- big bodies who could start in a rare situation because of a lack of quality big men than an indicator of having starting talent.

They can start in the right situation, but in a vacuum of talent these are hardly going to be considered more than bit players. They are limited in what they do well, and their liabilities more than offset what few assets they present.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> I'm assuming you're talking about this past season.


no i'm talking about this upcoming season, though i guess i could make a list for the past season as well.



> There is no way Travis Outlaw would start over Rashard Lewis or Hedo Turkoglu in Orlando.


lewis was at pf. hedo would start at sg. outlaw would move into the lineup over keith bogans and mo evans.



> Outlaw would start in Philadelphia only if Andre Iguodala is moved to shooting guard (Iguodala started at small forward largely for the Sixers).


outlaw would start over thadeous young.


> I doubt Outlaw would have started over Grant Hill.


i don't.


> Excuse me, but didn't Caron Butler start at small forward for Washington? And Corey Maggette for the L.A. Clippers?


they did. but outlaw would play sf for the wizards and start over deshawn stevenson. and maggette is gone now. outlaw would start over thornton.


> I can't say I can see Outlaw starting in San Antonio over Bruce Bowen (it's a matter of talent, but a matter of Bowen fitting a particular role for the Spurs).


he wouldn't have to. he'd be taking finley's spot in the starting lineup. bowen is going to guard the best perimeter player anyway and parker is going to be the ball handler so it doesn't matter.



> Outlaw may start at New Jersey NOW, but he would have been on the bench when Richard Jefferson was there.


right. he would start for new jersey.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> lewis was at pf. hedo would start at sg. outlaw would move into the lineup over keith bogans and mo evans.


The problem is Hedo Turkoglu doesn't strike as being a good fit at shooting guard (he's played almost solely at small forward his entire career), so I could see Travis Outlaw coming off the bench.



rocketeer said:


> outlaw would start over thadeous young.


It's possible, but if Andre Iguodala is at small forward forget it.



rocketeer said:


> i don't.


Outlaw's numbers weren't better than Grant Hill's, and Raja Bell also split some time there.



rocketeer said:


> they did. but outlaw would play sf for the wizards and start over deshawn stevenson.


Except DeShawn Stevenson was the starting shooting guard. The team would have to move Caron Butler at shooting guard to make way for Outlaw, and IMO Butler is better suited to play at the 3 spot. But IMO.



rocketeer said:


> and maggette is gone now. outlaw would start over thornton.


The Clippers seem to be high on Al Thornton and he did play well for a rookie, particularly in the second half of the season. That one is questionable.



rocketeer said:


> he wouldn't have to. he'd be taking finley's spot in the starting lineup. bowen is going to guard the best perimeter player anyway and parker is going to be the ball handler so it doesn't matter.


Save that Corey Maggette reportedly was in San Antonio's sights, which means Maggette would be starting.



rocketeer said:


> right. he would start for new jersey.


OK, I can see that.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> and really it doesn't even matter. all guys that come over the bench are not scrubs. scrubs are end of the bench players. outlaw was one of the better guys coming off the bench in the league last season.


And once again, Reading Is Fundamental. The only Blazer I called a scrub is Joel Przybilla; I called Travis Outlaw and several other players unproven. That's at least the second or third time I've said that to you and it still hasn't registered with you.

IMO, Outlaw may be one the one player who has to establish his game with Greg Oden and Jerryd Bayless added to the Blazers' roster. I feel Brandon Roy's and LaMarcus Aldridge's roles are established. But Outlaw got a lot of plays and shots when Roy and Aldridge were out, and the new additions could affect his production and development.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Najee said:


> And once again, Reading Is Fundamental. The only Blazer I called a scrub is Joel Przybilla; I called Travis Outlaw and several other players unproven. That's at least the second or third time I've said that to you and it still hasn't registered with you.


steve blake has played 5 seasons in the nba. outlaw has also played 5 seasons. webster has played 3, starting half the games he's played in. frye has played 3 seasons. to dismiss those guys as "unproven" and say they haven't produced anything is stupid. they have all proven to be good role players and have produced like them.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> steve blake has played 5 seasons in the nba. outlaw has also played 5 seasons. webster has played 3, starting half the games he's played in. frye has played 3 seasons. to dismiss those guys as "unproven" and say they haven't produced anything is stupid. they have all proven to be good role players and have produced like them.


No, what is stupid is someone who continues to misread what I said and tries to put words in people's mouths even though (s)he has been corrected several times. This conversation is over.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Najee said:


> No, what is stupid is someone who continues to misread what I said and tries to put words in people's mouths even though (s)he has been corrected several times. This conversation is over.


You're absolutely correct. This conversation has been over for quite some time. You've been shown again and again that Joel Przybilla is most certainly not a scrub, yet you persist with your silly position. Of course, you'll probably respond with his offensive production numbers, which will only serve to highlight your ignorance.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

As for the subject of this thread, the Lakers have more talent today (talent in my mind being realized potential), but the Blazers will overtake them over the next two years.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> On potential it's Portland.
> 
> Oden is supposed to better than Bynum
> *Aldridge is already better than Gasol*
> ...


LOL.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

LOL @ Najee calling Przybilla a "scrub". Dude had the 2nd best rebounding rate in the L behind Dwight, and is an anchor on defense.

It's cool to have your own opinion and all, but when you start lying and making false claims which you have done a lot of in this thread, you start losing credibility.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

my question is do any of the public actually know how bad Bynum's injury is and why his recovery is getting close to the miles zone? WHy did the injury go from being out a few games to the rest of the reason? doesnt that create some form of worry? 

what i find funny is that odom tries to play mind tricks on the blazers and it back fires.....terribly. odom or aldridge would you rather have?


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

It is simply ridiculous to say the Blazers.

Kobe is much better than Roy
Gasol is better than Aldridge
Bynum and Oden are both questionable after injuries, but I'd call them similar at this point.
Vujacic is just as good as Outlaw, if not better.
Fisher is better than Blake
Turiaf is not much worse than Pryzbilla
Radmanovic is as good as Webster
Farmar is slightly worse than Bayless should be
Mihm is worse than Frye
Ariza is better than Rudy

Oh, and they also have Odom.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Vuchato said:


> It is simply ridiculous to say the Blazers.
> 
> Kobe is much better than Roy (Currently)
> Gasol is better than Aldridge (Currently, but even then it's debatable)
> ...


Fixed


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Oh BTW, this thread isn't about who's currently better, it's about who has more talent and potential.

I'm surprised at how many dyslexic people there are in here.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

2k said:


> I would say the Trail Blazers are the more talented team simply because they are 10 deep after that they have Ike Diogu and Batum (who would get playing time on some teams) and even more potential rotation players overseas.
> The 2nd team of
> Bayless
> Fernandez
> ...


No. The frontcourt would be one of the worst this league has ever seen, Bayless and Fernandez are rookies and despite being talented they won't be world beaters either. It would be the worst team in the NBA.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

2k said:


> I would say the Trail Blazers are the more talented team simply because they are 10 deep after that they have Ike Diogu and Batum (who would get playing time on some teams) and even more potential rotation players overseas.
> The 2nd team of
> Bayless
> Fernandez
> ...


wow.. you're kidding right?


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Najee said:


> Joel Przybilla started for some teams only because they were that weak on the frontline; that's different from being "a quality starter." For instance, in Milwaukee in 2001-02, he was the _de facto_ starting center for a team built around the talents of Ray Allen, Sam Cassell and Glenn Robinson. Despite starting 62 games, he averaged less than 16 minutes per game and he rarely made an impact.




Now you are changing your definition, as I figured you would when somebody showed how wrong you were. So now your requirement for not being a scrub is being "a quality starter". Next it will be "all-star". Keep changing what you originally said so it fits your baseless argument. 



Najee said:


> If your barometer for not being a scrub is a player akin to Will Perdue, then I guess Przybilla is not a scrub.




You seem to have a bad memory. This was YOUR barometer or definition, not mine.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

croco said:


> No. The frontcourt would be one of the worst this league has ever seen, Bayless and Fernandez are rookies and despite being talented they won't be world beaters either. It would be the worst team in the NBA.


I disagree. Frye has value offensively, Pryzbilla has value defensively, both have good size. Outlaw has 20ppg potential with more touches. The question mark is Bayless and Fernandez. Fernandez shouldn't take too long, but I don't know what kind of PG Bayless is going to be. Batum has potential to be extremely good. Ike Diogu is underrated.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> I'm assuming you're talking about this past season.
> 
> There is no way Travis Outlaw would start over Rashard Lewis or Hedo Turkoglu in Orlando.
> 
> ...


There are at least 7 teams Outlaw would start for in 08/09. If you don't think the Spurs wouldn't bring a 37-year-old Bowen off the bench for Outlaw, I don't know what to tell you. Athleticism and scoring, ability to create your own shot... these are all things the Spurs could use a lot more of.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

come on fellas, that line-up would not make the playoffs in the East...

Even last years weak east, at best would be 20ish wins, imo. (in the easT)


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

DaRizzle said:


> Pau 2nd year: 19ppg 8.8reb
> 
> LA 2nd year: 17.8ppg 7.6reb
> 
> LA has a way to go...


1.2 pts and 1.2 rebs per game better and he has a "way to go" ????

I don't think 1.2 and 1.2 is a waaayyy to do fams!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Gasol averaged more points, more rebounds, more assists, and shot a better FG% and FT% than Aldridge this past season.
> 
> Gasol has been doing this since 2001 and his past season was better than Aldridge's...there is simply no good reason for anyone to say at this point that LA is better than Pau.


how about the fact that LA decidedly got the better of Pau in the 5 times they matched up this past year? Of course thats not everything by a long shot, but I'd say it's a pretty good reason for anyone to point to in debating the two.

STOMP


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

there is a fairly big disparity in scoring efficiency and passing ability right now (and really at any point) between LA and gasol.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Joel is a scrub? Outlaw is unproven? All credibility lost. Wow. I know the Blazers haven't gotten a ton of national TV exposure over the course of the last 3 years, but to call Joel a scrub and Outlaw unproven is completely inaccurate and is spoken from pure ignorance.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Ed O said:


> It's "bizarre". Good try, though. Let's look at the rest of your post and see if it is better than the first sentence.


Look out guys, the spelling police is on patrol.



> Would I? Where did I say that? All I'm doing is comparing talent, and the nearly 34 year-old Fisher is not, for all his strengths, a talented player. Certainly not along the lines of a near seven-foot lottery pick from a couple of years ago.


Fisher isn't a talented player, and Frye is? A starter on a Western Conference Champion is not as talented as a player on a .500 team getting 17 minutes per game? What the hell are you talking about?

See, this is my entire point. You're just making **** up and trying to scientifically explain it.



> I know it's amazing, but sometimes players can be good even if they haven't played in the NBA... it's why there's a draft each and every year. Further, and more to the point, talent and playing in an NBA game are not really that closely related.


You're comparing a very decent role player to a guy that hasn't set foot on an NBA court. If anything, you should declare them equal, not Fernandez to magically be "more talented". I'm sure you have watched oodles of film on Fernandez, too, right?



> You seem unwilling (or maybe incapable?) of recognizing the differences between a player being talented and a player being good. As my caveats (look it up) at the beginning of my post indicated, I recognize talent can be defined different ways. I tried to explain how *I* defined it, and I'm not criticizing anyone for disagreeing with me based on different definitions.
> 
> Ed O.


Actually, here's the problem with what you're attempting to do (you did a damn good job of conveniently ignoring it in my last post, too):

You're trying to measure an entirely unmeasurable asset. Talent is impossible to measure, and you're trying to make some kind of scientific comparison. It makes it even more ridiculous that you're comparing proven NBA commodities to players that haven't even played in the NBA yet... again, something that is impossible to do.

I just think it's a little funny how some Blazer fans are so excited about their young team and how much POTENTIAL (not talent) the team has. Then other Blazer fans actually have their head on straight and remember that the Lakers just won the Western Conference and that potential or talent or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean jack **** if you can't win.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

unluckyseventeen said:


> You're trying to measure an entirely unmeasurable asset. Talent is impossible to measure, and you're trying to make some kind of scientific comparison. It makes it even more ridiculous that you're comparing proven NBA commodities to players that haven't even played in the NBA yet... again, something that is impossible to do.


Apparently you didn't get the memo. 

Correct, talent can not be measured, which is EXACTLY why this thread even exists. Everybody in this thread is estimating an unmeasurable assest. What part of that do you not understand? 

If talent could be scientifically measured, then this thread would be equivalent to discussing which team had the better record last year, and there would be no reason to have a draft every year. 

:azdaja:


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

If we're talking about talent, let's be clear as to the definition:

Talent: Any natural ability or power; natural endowment.

So, we're not talking about what given players have achieved thus far in their NBA careers; we're talking about their natural abilities as basketball players. Given that definition, I don't think it's even close from top to bottom on the Blazers' and Lakers' rosters. While there's no proven objective measurement of talent, it's pretty clear that NBA GM's take their best shots at it each year in the draft. Here's a list of the draft positions of both teams' players:

Trevor Ariza	SF	23	43rd
Kobe Bryant	SG	29	13th
Andrew Bynum	C	20	10th
Joe Crawford	SG	22	58th
Jordan Farmar	PG	21	26th
Derek Fisher	PG	33	24th
Pau Gasol	PF	28	3rd
Coby Karl	SG	25	undrafted
DJ Mbenga	C	27	46th
Chris Mihm	C	28	7th
Ira Newble	SF	33	undrafted
Lamar Odom	PF	28	4th
Vladimir Radmanovic PF 27	12th
Ronny Turiaf	C	25	37th
Sasha Vujacic	SG	24	27th
Luke Walton	SF	28	32nd


LaMarcus Aldridge PF	22	2nd
Nicolas Batum	SF	19	25th
Jerryd Bayless	PG	19	11th
Steve Blake	PG	28	38th
Ike Diogu	PF	24	9th
Rudy Fernandez	G	23	24th
Channing Frye	PF	25	8th
Raef LaFrentz	C	32	3rd
Greg Oden	C	20	1st
Travis Outlaw	SF	23	23rd
Joel Przybilla	C	28	9th
Sergio Rodriguez PG	22	27th
Brandon Roy	SG	23	6th
Martell Webster SF	21	6th

The Lakers have 6 lottery picks on their roster (although Mihm certainly hasn't shown he was worthy of that pick). The Blazers have 9, and Fernandez would undoubtedly have been a lottery pick in this year's draft.
The Lakers have 5 second round picks and two undrafted players on their roster. The Blazers only have one.

If you were going to break up the Blazers and the Lakers and have a dispersal draft of their players, my bet is that 10 of the first 15 players chosen would be Blazers.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Wow. I guess I'm a thread killer.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

lol, naw man, your not. This thread just should have died a while ago, imo. You made a good point.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> This thread just should have died a while ago, imo.


True. I guess I was just late to the party. 

The reality is, this will play out on the court over the next few seasons and we'll get a chance to see which players are the most talented.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Comparing Aldridge to Gasol is absurd. Aldridge is a good player, but he has a ways to go before he gets to Gasol's level.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Comparing Aldridge to Gasol is absurd. Aldridge is a good player, but he has a ways to go before he gets to Gasol's level.


The only things Gasol's more talented than Aldridge at are flopping and growing a neck beard. :biggrin:


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Comparing Aldridge to Gasol is absurd. Aldridge is a good player, but he has a ways to go before he gets to Gasol's level.


Not really. Aldridge usually plays better head to head. Aldridge is a better defender, and their offensive stats are pretty comparible.

Aldridge is also like 22 years old, is more athletic and has more potential. 

Its a pretty good comparison. I think Gasol is a little better right now, but most every (if not every) GM would rather take LaMarcus.

IDK how that makes it "absurd". :whoknows:


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> Comparing Aldridge to Gasol is absurd. Aldridge is a good player, but he has a ways to go before he gets to Gasol's level.


And what exactly does he have to do to reach that "level"? Every time Aldridge and Gasol match up, Aldridge dominates him.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

From a statistical production point Aldridge hasn't even had ONE season comparable to Pau Gasol's worst statistical season (which was, incidentally, his rookie season) and you Blazer fans are already pronouncing him better than Gasol? And you're basing this "fact" on what, 4 regular season matchups? Wow, you're even more delusional than I thought at first (there are some sane and down to earth Portland fans, so I apologise for generalizing) while reading through this thread.

Aldridge might have lots of upside and potential and whatnot, but Gasol has consistently been one of the top 7-footers in this league for 7 straight seasons. So lets just wait a season or two before we start calling a virtual nobody (disclaimer: I think that LMA is actually a nice player that should only continue to get better, before the whole Blazer patrol jumps on my back) better than him, shall we?


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Aug 2, 2006)

Blazers have more talent top to bottom.

Lakers have better talent.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Plastic Man said:


> From a statistical production point Aldridge hasn't even had ONE season comparable to Pau Gasol's worst statistical season (which was, incidentally, his rookie season) and you Blazer fans are already pronouncing him better than Gasol?


Let's see... you claim Aldridge hasn't even had ONE season comparable to Gasol's worst??? 

Guess which stats belong to who... 

Rbs ast stls blk TO pts 

A)7.6 1.6 0.7 1.2 1.66 17.8

b)7.3 2.4 0.7 1.7 2.45 17.8


A)is Aldrige from last year, and B) is Gasol from 04-05. Those appear to be VERY comparable. Not to mention that Aldridge was over a year younger than Gasol when he posted these numbers. 

You are very, very wrong. Please pull your head out before you type next time.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Plastic Man said:


> From a statistical production point Aldridge hasn't even had ONE season comparable to Pau Gasol's worst statistical season (which was, incidentally, his rookie season) and you Blazer fans are already pronouncing him better than Gasol? And you're basing this "fact" on what, 4 regular season matchups? Wow, you're even more delusional than I thought at first (there are some sane and down to earth Portland fans, so I apologise for generalizing) while reading through this thread.
> 
> Aldridge might have lots of upside and potential and whatnot, but Gasol has consistently been one of the top 7-footers in this league for 7 straight seasons. So lets just wait a season or two before we start calling a virtual nobody (disclaimer: I think that LMA is actually a nice player that should only continue to get better, before the whole Blazer patrol jumps on my back) better than him, shall we?


Oh, so we're talking stats? Then I guess Zach Randolph and Shareef Abdur-Rahim are heading for the Hall of Fame. Pau Gasol for years was the only real option on a set of terrible teams in Memphis. Being the best player on the worst team is nothing to write home about.


----------



## King Sancho Fantastic (Jul 19, 2005)

maxiep said:


> Oh, so we're talking stats? Then I guess Zach Randolph and Shareef Abdur-Rahim are heading for the Hall of Fame. Pau Gasol for years was the only real option on a set of terrible teams in Memphis. *Being the best player on the worst team is nothing to write home about.*


Tell that to KG before he went to Boston...


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

blazerboy said:


> Now you are changing your definition, as I figured you would when somebody showed how wrong you were. So now your requirement for not being a scrub is being "a quality starter".


Last I looked, an eight-year pro with Joel Przybilla's career numbers would be considered a scrub. Those are numbers in line with players like Alton Lister, Tree Rollins, Will Perdue and Olden Polynice. And you simply sound like a zealot if you actually think Przybilla started because he was a standout player and not a big body to clog the lane.

He's a scrub, END OF STORY. There's nothing to call changing a definition.



blazerboy said:


> You seem to have a bad memory. This was YOUR barometer or definition, not mine.


You simply can't read that well. Pryzbilla was the only player on Portland's roster I called a scrub. It's a joke to call him a quality starter. A quality starter is someone like Jason Richardson or Gerald Wallace, and you surely can't call Przybilla remotely in that class. Erick Dampier is an upgrade over Przybilla.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

OdenRoyLMA2 said:


> LOL @ Najee calling Przybilla a "scrub". Dude had the 2nd best rebounding rate in the L behind Dwight, and is an anchor on defense.


Spoken like a true zealot. You must think Jon Koncak was a good player if you don't think Przybilla is a scrub (that is, if Koncak wore a Blazers jersey).

The rebound rate may actually mean something if Pryzbilla was good enough to stay on the floor long; historically he's been foul prone. That and he is such a liability on offense.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please... just stop making yourself look stupid. You have obviously not watched as much of Pryzbilla as Blazer fans.

His defensive presence does not translate into stats. He is a bad offensive player, but he will get you off. rebounds and 6ppg from putbacks. He also sets good picks on offense. But he is a beast defensively, and will probably be one of the best backup Centers in the NBA next year.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> His defensive presence does not translate into stats. He is a bad offensive player, but he will get you off. rebounds and 6ppg from putbacks. He also sets good picks on offense. But he is a beast defensively, and will probably be the best backup Center in the NBA next year.


Hell, that makes Joel Przybilla, what, at best an Erick Dampier-caliber player. What defensive skill Przybilla has is more than offset by his very limited offensive game.

It's amazing that Dampier is considered in many NBA circles to be a scrub but yet somehow a player the same caliber (Przybilla) is not by a bunch of (barely) teen-agers on a Web site that come up with some of the most ridiculous statements. So does that mean Dampier is not a scrub? And if so, what makes him a scrub and not Przybilla?


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Dude, after contridicting yourself in your first arguement, you managed to do the same in your 2nd.



> Portland really only has two players who are proven (Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) and they aren't as good as Williams and Boozer. Virtually everyone else on the Blazers are unproven or scrubs.


was your first quote.



> You simply can't read that well. Pryzbilla was the only player on Portland's roster I called a scrub.


LMFAO at you saying that HE can't read well.

Your arguements have been blown off ever since. You make no sense. You've been owned over and over by Blazer fans, yet keep changing your position to try and make yourself look better. LMAO.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

And evidently you can't read well, son. "Virtually everyone else (except Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) on the Blazers squad are unproven or scrubs" then identifying Joel Przybilla as a scrub doesn't contradict in any manner.

You may want to finish up that summer school English class if you actually thinks that contradicts. But hey, if you think a guy putting up Will Perdue-like numbers is not a scrub, then more power to you.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Hell, that makes Joel Przybilla, what, at best an Erick Dampier-caliber player. What defensive skill Przybilla has is more than offset by his very limited offensive game.
> 
> It's amazing that Dampier is considered in many NBA circles to be a scrub but yet somehow a player the same caliber (Przybilla) is not by a bunch of (barely) teen-agers on a Web site that come up with some of the most ridiculous statements. So does that mean Dampier is not a scrub? And if so, what makes him a scrub and not Przybilla?


And what is your definition of scrubs? Pryzbilla and Dampier (who has nothing to do with this thread) would both be really good backup role-players...

edit - i'm pretty sure that Detroit and San Antonio both offered Joel Pryzbilla money when he was a Free Agent before he came back to portland also.



> And evidently you can't read well, son. "Virtually everyone else (except Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge) on the Blazers squad are unproven or scrubs" then identifying Joel Przybilla as a scrub doesn't contradict in any manner.


?

So you say that other than Brandon Roy and LMA, every player on the Blazer is either unproven or a scrub, right? Well Blake,Pryzbilla, Outlaw have all been in the league at least 5 years. So they can't be unproven... 
Frye is going on his 4th year with Martell Webster. LaFrentz is over 30, but people like Blake and LaFrentz are definitely unproven right? totally agree. I think Blake has un-tapped potential. Maybe at age 29 he will blossom into an all star.

but you are right, i guess you only called Pryz a scrub? lol...


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> And what is your definition of scrubs? Pryzbilla and Dampier (who has nothing to do with this thread) would both be really good backup role-players...


Joel Pryzbilla and Erick Dampier are below-average players overall, but because of the lack of quality big men in the NBA even their marginal value is overassessed. Outside of their physical presence, they may offer a decent skill but they bring far more liabilities to the table that lowers their overall, long-term effectiveness.

Personally, I find this Web site amusing. I've read where people have referred to Shawn Marion as a role player (which is laughable) and Christian Laettner as a scrub (again, laughable), and then there is the opposite where people like Przybilla are being called more than scrubs. What is even more hilarious is the Blazers fans jumping on me, when Portland is arguably my favorite NBA team (with Clyde Drexler as one of my all-time favorite players, right behind Isiah Thomas).


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Joel Pryzbilla and Erick Dampier are below-average players overall


see, that is where i don't agree. I think Pryzbilla, just like Steve Blake, is an average, solid player in the NBA, and would bea great backup for a team.

Below average starter? probably. Below Average-average range on that. But a damn nice backup. IDK how that makes him a scrub.


----------



## OdenRoyLMA2 (May 23, 2008)

Najee said:


> Spoken like a true zealot. You must think Jon Koncak was a good player if you don't think Przybilla is a scrub (that is, if Koncak wore a Blazers jersey).
> 
> The rebound rate may actually mean something if Pryzbilla was good enough to stay on the floor long; historically he's been foul prone. That and he is such a liability on offense.


Joel was a starter on an extremely young .500 team in the competitive West, and did what was asked of him and more. 

I consider a scrub someone who is a third-string player. Przybilla is not.


----------



## B-Roy (Feb 12, 2008)

I guess that depends on how you define scrubs. I feel like, guys like Blake/Pryzbilla/Dampier, aren't scrubs because they can contribute well for their teams, even as a back-up.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> see, that is where i don't agree. I think Pryzbilla, just like Steve Blake, is an average, solid player in the NBA, and would be a great backup for a team.


Well, then we disagree. Considering nearly half of a team's 12-man roster starters, I would consider an average NBA player to be someone who theoretically can be a starter for the average NBA team.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

heh, thats funny.

The Blazers were 41-41, as average as it gets, and Pryz was a starter. lol. ok i'm done, i'm going to bed.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> heh, thats funny.
> 
> The Blazers were 41-41, as average as it gets, and Pryz was a starter. lol. ok i'm done, i'm going to bed.


Joel Przybilla was a below-average player playing a thin position putting up below-average production. If you can make the argument that Pryzbilla is better as a player than roughly half the NBA (and not because he's starting by virtue of lack of quality big men), then that's a different story.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

i think you are definitely confusing a scrub player with an average player. An average player is right in the middle of the pack.

There are a couple teams around the NBA that Pryzbilla would start for. And he will be one of, if not THE best backup Center in teh NBA.

but i suppose you can call him a scrub. It does depend on your meaning of the word, so i guess it is pretty rediculous to argue against it if you think a scrub player is anyone who isn't an average starter in the NBA (which Pryzbilla is).

edit - wow, actually, after thinking about it, it is extremely stupid to argue about this because in essense we are just going back and forth arguing about what a "scrub" would be classified as.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> Well, then we disagree. Considering nearly half of a team's 12-man roster starters, I would consider an average NBA player to be someone who theoretically can be a starter for the average NBA team.



Most teams have 15 players throughout the season. 15 x 30 = 450. 150 are starters or 33%. I don't see why you are labeling anyone who is not a starter a scrub.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> I don't see why you are labeling anyone who is not a starter a scrub.


He just has a different definition of a scrub is what i was thinking. :whoknows:


----------



## jc4 (May 28, 2008)

blazers and aldridge is going to be way better than pau in the future.


----------



## Plastic Man (Nov 8, 2004)

blazerboy30 said:


> Let's see... you claim Aldridge hasn't even had ONE season comparable to Gasol's worst???
> 
> Guess which stats belong to who...
> 
> ...


Oh no, it's the Blazer patrol. Let's examine those stats, shall we?

Gasol's worst PER was 19.5 (in his rookie season no less) and 22.5 in the season you chose as a "comparable" to LaMarcus' this year; Aldridge PER this season was a whooping 18.5. Gasol's efficiency rating hasn't fallen below 20.7 and he enjoyed his 2nd most productive time while playing for the Lakers (24.0). Now, I realize that 27 games is a small sample size, but since his scoring efficiency numbers have skyrocketed, I have no reason to believe he wouldn't be able to post a similar stat during a longer period. But that's okay, I'm not a big fan of PER, so let's examine other stats. From a scoring output you might be able to compare them when talking solely about points per game... as soon as you dig deeper and compare their FG%, or even better their eFG% or TS% it's over, since Aldridge is a very mediocre shooter (eFG% of .484 is quite bad and is even ridiculously bad when compared .536 or even .589, which was the number he posted with the Lakers). Gasol is also a much much better passer, a better shotblocker and a better rebounder. Gasol has also been averaging roughly the same numbers for a span of 7 years, while Aldridge has had ONE decent season, that still can't be compared to Gasol's worst, which occured in 2001 when he was a 21 year old rookie.

So please, it appears you should be the one to pull your head out next time you try to compare a guy who was a franchise player for his team and help led the Lakers to the Finals while being a much more accomplished and complete player than a 2nd year LaMarcus Aldridge. I wasn't even talking about talent, since LMA has tons, but trying to imply that the two are comparable or even that Aldridge is better is not only being a delusional homer, but it's disrespectful to Gasol.



maxiep said:


> Oh, so we're talking stats? Then I guess Zach Randolph and Shareef Abdur-Rahim are heading for the Hall of Fame. Pau Gasol for years was the only real option on a set of terrible teams in Memphis. Being the best player on the worst team is nothing to write home about.


Yes, we're talking stats. I wasn't the one who brought them up first though, since it's painfully obvious to anyone who watches basketball and isn't a Blazer homer that Gasol is the better, more complete player than Aldridge though. 

I don't know why you are bringing Randolph and Rahim into the discussion, since neither of the two posted great numbers for a longer period of time and generally aren't regarded as great stat guys (perhaps "empty stat guys": although I can't see how that would apply to Pau other than a year or two when Memphis was really bad and even then he posted much better numbers than the two mentioned did on equally bad teams)... in fact, both of the players' best season's PER can't even sniff Gasol's, let alone career averages. Both mentioned are (or were in SRA's case) severely inferior players than Gasol, never led their teams to the Playoffs (even as the franchise players) and were far from being as efficient and consistent as Gasol. So I have no ****ing idea what you're rambling about. You really don't need stats to see that Gasol is a superior player than the two and Aldridge, too. Well, if you don't have your Blazer googles on that is.

Your last sentence is even funnier while also being untrue. For years he was the only real option on a set of terrible teams? You do realize Memphis made the Playoffs 3 of the 6 years Gasol has been with them (which is 3 more than Aldridge while staying with Portland) while having more than decent records (45, 49 and 50 win seasons) and incidentally his best statistical outputs occured in those winning years (outside of 2006/07, when I agree that the team was a punching bag + Pau was sidelined for +20 games because of the injury he suffered while playing for Spain, so who knows what the record would've been with him healthy the whole season). Not only that, Pau Gasol has enjoyed his most efficient and productive time when being traded to the Lakers, who were in the Finals this year. So what were you going on about again?

Aldridge as good or already better than Gasol? Ha. This borders blasphemy. What will we hear next, that Roy is almost as good as Bryant or has a great chance to be?


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

bballlife said:


> Most teams have 15 players throughout the season. 15 x 30 = 450. 150 are starters or 33%. I don't see why you are labeling anyone who is not a starter a scrub.


It's pretty evident reading comprehension as well as other attributes are lacking in this discussion. No one said a player who doesn't start is a scrub, so you can take that lie somewhere else.

The typical NBA team has a 12-man active roster. It's fair to say of that group, eight or nine are in a regular rotation so the bottom three don't even merit consideration much less the three people on the inactive roster (these six guys are basically waiver-wire material or slightly better). So a typical team more or less starts the bulk of the players it generally uses in a typical game.

An average NBA player is someone who would be the fifth- or sixth-best player for practically any NBA team, IMO. A player like Raja Bell is an average player -- decent to effective all-around. A player with no great or uncommon strengths but not with any noticeable weaknesses. At this stage, Raymond Felton (strengths in some aspects, one or two weaknesses in other areas) is another player who comes in mind.

IMO, Joel Pryzbilla is clearly at least one level Bell and Felton because he has some very pronounced weaknesses. He started more out of the function of the below-average depth of big men than an indication of his talent and production relative to the rest of the NBA. There is a difference between a player who can play for any team irrespective of circumstances and a below-average player who gets run because of circumstances.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

See Najee, i think those players that aren't in the rotation (usually the 9-12 players on the team) are the scrubs. Not a solid rotation guy that can step in very nicely.

Pryz would be in pretty much every rotation around the NBA as a backup center (and maybe even start on some teams). Like i said, Detroit and San Antonio both offered him contracts. And again, he will be one of if not the best backup Center in the NBA.

The fact that you think he is a scrub because he isn't good on the offensive end (where in fact he really just has a certain role on the offensive end as the garbage man getting offensive rebounds, setting picks and so on..) just doesn't make sense.

I think of Pryzbilla in the same sense that i think of Blake. I actually think that if Blake was a center, he would pretty much be the same person as Pryzbilla. They are just solid role players.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Najee said:


> I would consider an average NBA player to be someone who theoretically can be a starter for the average NBA team.





Najee said:


> No one said a player who doesn't start is a scrub, so you can take that lie somewhere else.


Najee you're coming out of this argument not looking very sharp, and with the notion that you're better and smarter than everybody else, even though these last few pages has been everybody arguing vs the things you've said.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Najee said:


> Joel Przybilla was a below-average player playing a thin position putting up below-average production. If you can make the argument that Pryzbilla is better as a player than roughly half the NBA (and not because he's starting by virtue of lack of quality big men), then that's a different story.


If you are trying to have a conversation, it helps to use words with generally accepted meanings. If you are going to make up definitions as you go along - as you have done in this thread - you are going to have people misunderstand what you are trying to say.

You say scrub, when you probably mean "stiff".

You are not excited by no offense centers like Pryz and Dampier. Whatever. Coaches are, and they continue to play them when they have them and GM's continue to (over)pay them when they can.

It is a team sport, and despite your dissing of their contributions big guy "stiffs" can be important contributors to teams winning games. Sure stiffs can't dribble or shoot. So how do they possibly help? Note this: there is only one ball and 5 guys. (Lightbulb)


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Lakers > Blazers as of now talent-wise.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

Masbee said:


> You are not excited by no offense centers like Pryz and Dampier. Whatever. Coaches are, and they continue to play them when they have them and GM's continue to (over)pay them when they can.


Coaches play players like Joel Przybilla and Erick Dampier because of the lack of decent big men in the NBA. In a vacuum of talent, these are below-average players relative to the rest of the NBA. If the talent depth was comparable to what it is for guards and forwards, players like Dampier and Pryzbilla would be worth even less; if anything, they tend to be slightly overvalued (hence, players like Dampier, Jon Koncak and Jim McIlvaine getting overpaid).

What makes them scrubs is that in light of their many weaknesses, they have to do the grunt work in order to stay in the league. In the case of players like Dampier and Przybilla, their biggest attributes are arguably their bodies. If a player like Dampier or Przybilla was to slack off in any effort, they are more likely to be out of the NBA.

Players below them, IMO, are garbage. They're primary goal is to fill the roster and for practice purposes.


----------



## Najee (Apr 5, 2007)

GregOden said:


> Najee you're coming out of this argument not looking very sharp, and with the notion that you're better and smarter than everybody else, even though these last few pages has been everybody arguing vs the things you've said.


Yeah, you're right. Because a bunch of zealots who still are living with their parents actually want to call Joel Przybilla an average player. I'm sorry, but when you have someone actually referring to Steve Blake as having all-star potential you really need to evaluate what you're saying.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Najee said:


> Yeah, you're right. Because a bunch of zealots who still are living with their parents actually want to call Joel Przybilla an average player. I'm sorry, but when you have someone actually referring to Steve Blake as having all-star potential you really need to evaluate what you're saying.


What's up with you and the word zealot. Did you just look it up this morning and thought it was really cool. That's like the fifth time you used it in the last two-three pages. Just adds to the annoyingness about you that I referred to earlier, how you think you're smarter than everyone.

Joel is not a scrub, Steve Blake is not an all star calliber player, nor will he ever be. 

Just because you don't see the usefulness of defensive bigs doesn't make them scrubs. It makes your view on basketball very one dimensional. Your outlook seems to be if you don't start for your team (even that's not enough, I suppose considering Joel DID start) or if you can't consistently score you're a scrub. That's pretty much just bogus. There are a lot of guys in the league that do certain things well, hence the term ROLE PLAYERS. Joel is a ROLE PLAYER. He plays defense, and does it well. Not being an all around talent doesn't make you bad. It makes your game very one sided, but as long as you're used how you should be in your system, you can still be relatively effective, which Joel is.

All in all if you want to call him a scrub, that's awesome. Good for you, you're so cool and so much better than everybody. Niche players = scrubs amiright.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Najee said:


> Coaches play players like Joel Przybilla and Erick Dampier because of the lack of decent big men in the NBA. In a vacuum of talent, these are below-average players relative to the rest of the NBA. If the talent depth was comparable to what it is for guards and forwards, players like Dampier and Pryzbilla would be worth even less; if anything, they tend to be slightly overvalued (hence, players like Dampier, Jon Koncak and Jim McIlvaine getting overpaid).
> 
> What makes them scrubs is that in light of their many weaknesses, they have to do the grunt work in order to stay in the league. In the case of players like Dampier and Przybilla, their biggest attributes are arguably their bodies. If a player like Dampier or Przybilla was to slack off in any effort, they are more likely to be out of the NBA.
> 
> Players below them, IMO, are garbage. They're primary goal is to fill the roster and for practice purposes.


You just won't give up this ghost of yours will you?

Despite fuzzy use of the English language. Unsubstantiated points. Lack of logic. You persist.

You say they are scrubs because, ummm, ummm, you say so. Therefore they are.

They have "many weaknesses" you say. Unlike, say a small, skilled guard who can dribble, pass and shoot?

Hmmm.

I don't see these 6 foot players setting many picks, blocking many shots, grabbing many rebounds. Why do they have so many "weaknesses"? They must be scrubs.

I see these many guards running around jacking up a lot of shots, using screens set by other players, and receiving the outlet pass from the guys that boxed out and nabbed the rebound.

Let's just say that your supposition that players like Joel have many weaknesses and "non-scrub" players DON'T have weaknesses is an absuridity.

Basketball is a team sport. Most players starting caliber players in the NBA are great at one or two things, good at some others, and poor at some others. Teams are fielded that blend and complement.

Guys like Joel that can't dribble or shoot may look ridiculous compared to a "star" guard (many of whom have lower WinShares than Joel), but Joel's role isn't to dribble or shoot, hard as that may be for you to fathom. And, thus Joel doesn't get compared by coaches, GM's and most fans to the best dribble-shoot-pass players in the NBA. He gets compared to other NBA Centers. When you do that he slots comfortably in as a starting caliber NBA Center.

Is Joel a great player? Of course not. But, to call that skill level "Scub" is wrong. That meaning is just not used in the NBA for players that rightly earn rotation level minutes, let alone starters.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Najee said:


> Coaches play players like Joel Przybilla and Erick Dampier because of the lack of decent big men in the NBA. In a vacuum of talent, these are below-average players relative to the rest of the NBA. If the talent depth was comparable to what it is for guards and forwards, players like Dampier and Pryzbilla would be worth even less


There is no "objective" level of talent by which to measure players. Ability is relative to peers. If Przybilla is better than half the centers in the league, that makes him above average. If he's roughly as good as the average center, he's average. By definition. You're falling into the trap of assuming there's some objective, cosmic standard of "goodness" and that it's possible for 90% of centers to be below average (you haven't stated this, but it's a logical implication of what you've been saying).

Freakishly big men (men near or above seven feet) who can play basketball are rare. Przybilla, in my estimation, is one of the better ones. By that I mean, he could legitimately start for some teams and will arguably be the best reserve center in the game. He'd be a below average starting center, but above average relative to all centers in the game.

"Scrub" is vague word which means whatever the users wants it to mean. But I don't personally think it's terribly reasonable for a player who is a top reserve and above average for his position to be labeled a "scrub." Of course, that's just my opinion. From the way most people use it, "scrub" seems to mean a player who provides very little value and therefore gets very few minutes. That has never been true for Przybilla, throughout his career.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm stunned that 94 people are foolish enough to think portland has more talent. I don't know how you even measure it really. I love Portlands talent level but most of it is potential to me which changes the dynamic of whats real talent. 

The Blazers at comparable positions don't have anyone as good as Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, nor Odom. 

Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge and Oden are all lesser players at this point. 

Kobe>Roy
Odom>Outlaw
Gasol>Aldridge I oould see this being swung in the Blazers favor. 
Bynum>Oden

The Portland youngsters have more potential but its all unrealized and speculative till we see otherwise and its foolish to think that all of those guys are just gonna elevate and be stars with so many young guys competing for pt. 

I think Pritchard has gone way overboard with too many young talents. He could create horrible chemistry problems and a salary cap nightmare in 3-4 years.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

:laugh: Lakers have much more proven talent. If we are going on potential this can be a debate. Going off of proven talent it isn't even close. Not one player on the Blazers deserves to sniff Kobe's jock. Gasol/Bynum/Odom have all proven more than anyone on the Blazers. Seriously 94 people love potential over production? The talent as of now (being proven on an NBA court) isn't even comparable.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bball2223;5602137Gasol/Bynum/Odom have all proven more than anyone on the Blazers.[/QUOTE said:


> more than roy? really? roy has definitely proven more than bynum and really to me has proven to be better than all three.
> 
> and proven talent is not the same as talent. who has produced more so far? obviously the lakers. who has more potential? i'd say pretty obviously the blazers. but who has more talent? that's an entirely different question.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Lakers= More Talent
Blazers= More Potential

Easy as that.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

bball2223 said:


> Gasol/Bynum/Odom have all proven more than anyone on the Blazers.


It's funny that Laker fans accuse the Blazer boosters of basing their argument on potential and then go on to say Andrew Bynum has proven more on the court than Brandon Roy. How many all-star teams has Bynum made? How many Rookie of the Year awards has he won? How many seasons has he averaged over 15 PPG?

Seriously, at this point Bynum has proven very little on the court (less than half a season averaging 13/10) and is about POTENTIAL as much as the young Blazers. He played in only 35 games last year and averaged 13/10. The year before, his second season, he averaged 7.2 PPG and 5.9 RPG. His rookie year he was a total joke (don't believe me, just ask Kobe). At this point, LaMarcus Aldridge has proven more ON THE COURT than Andrew Bynum. Aldridge's rookie year was better than Bynum's second season and this past season Aldridge played as good, or better (more points, fewer rebounds), than Bynum. The difference being that Aldridge did it for a full season, not less than half a season like Bynum.

Bynum MAY have more POTENTIAL than Aldridge, but Aldridge has accomplished more on the court at this point in their careers.

So, if we don't get to play the "potential card" for our young guys, you don't get to do it for Bynum either.

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> I'm stunned that 94 people are foolish enough to think portland has more talent. I don't know how you even measure it really. I love Portlands talent level but most of it is potential to me which changes the dynamic of whats real talent.
> 
> The Blazers at comparable positions don't have anyone as good as Kobe, Bynum, Gasol, nor Odom.


Seriously? I get Kobe, but two of them aren't better than the Blazers next three. Gasol and LaMarcus are all but tied, Bynum _ain't_ that good. You could make an argument for Odom, but it's not a strong one.


> Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge and Oden are all lesser players at this point.
> 
> Kobe>Roy
> Odom>Outlaw
> ...


You do know that the owner of the team is a billionaire, right? If he wants to re-sign all of the big 3 to max contracts, he will.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

bball2223 said:


> Gasol/Bynum/Odom have all proven more than anyone on the Blazers.


How on earth has Bynum proved more than Aldridge or Roy? He maybe proved as much as Aldridge, but he certainly hasn't blown him out of the water. People are really getting hyped up on those 35 games (Only started 25) Bynum played last year. They were impressive, and I like Bynum but let's not lose ourselves. Aldridge started 76 games last year and averaged about 18/8/1.2. Those are pretty impressive numbers, and he put those numbers up consistently for nearly an entire season. Aldridge has played in less games, but still has 20 more starts and has put up better career numbers.

Don't want to turn this into LMA vs Bynum thread, because they're both good players. Just don't downplay some of those Blazers guys, some of them are unproven, but some have done enough to jump out of the "potential" category and into the "talent" pool.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> Kobe>Roy
> Odom>Outlaw
> Gasol>Aldridge I oould see this being swung in the Blazers favor.
> Bynum>Oden


uhhh. we are talking TALENT here. Aldridge and Oden have more than Gasol and Bynum, and i think talent wise outlaw is up there with Odom. And then we have Bayless, Fernandez, Webster, etc..


----------



## ShaqAttack3234 (Jul 11, 2008)

The Lakers.

They have the best player in the game Kobe Bryant who's just 29 still.

They have a 20-10 type big man in Gasol who is also probably the best 
passing big man in the league as well as being a great shot blocker.

Lamar is one of the most versatile players I've ever seen. He can be counted on for 13-7 ppg, 10-11 rpg but also 4-6 apg while playing power forward or running the offense as a point forward. 

Andrew Bynum has incredible talent as well. Not only did he average over 13 and 10 with 2 blocks, nearly 2 assists on a league leading 64% shooting in less than 29 minutes per game but he was even better as a starter and rapidly improving.

In Bynum's last 16 games before his injury he averaged.
16.4 ppg, 10.9 rpg, 2.1 apg, 2.4 bpg, 67.7 FG% on just 10.1 shots per game.

The Lakers were 13-3 in those games.

To put up those numbers as the 2nd option on a team that went 13-3 in the Western Conference is pretty amazing for a 20 year old who had just been playing basketball for 4-5 years.

In 25 games as a starter last season Drew averaged 14.6 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 1.8 apg, 2.3 bpg, 65.6 FG%.

As much potential as Oden has, Bynum has just as much IMO.

Both teams have a chance to become dynasties though.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

ShaqAttack3234 said:


> As much potential as Oden has, Bynum has just as much IMO.


Disagree. I love Bynum, and I've said numerous times in numerous threads that I think Bynum is going to be a very good player.

That being said, he doesn't have nearly the potential Oden does in my honest opinion. Oden has the potential to be an elite defender, and has showed he is talented offensively. He can use both hands effectively to score, and is a good free throw shooter. It's too hard to argue this right now considering they're both so young and unproven but Oden should have the better career out of the two.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Najee said:


> The typical NBA team has a 12-man active roster. It's fair to say of that group, eight or nine are in a regular rotation so the bottom three don't even merit consideration much less the three people on the inactive roster (these six guys are basically waiver-wire material or slightly better). So a typical team more or less starts the bulk of the players it generally uses in a typical game.





It's pretty evident you don't follow the NBA real close. Many coaches use a 10-man rotation. Some use more on certain nights. Then you have a coach like Doc Rivers who often played all 12 guys. Of all the inactive players, a majority of them get playing time due to something called "injuries."


----------



## ShaqAttack3234 (Jul 11, 2008)

GregOden said:


> Disagree. I love Bynum, and I've said numerous times in numerous threads that I think Bynum is going to be a very good player.
> 
> That being said, he doesn't have nearly the potential Oden does in my honest opinion. Oden has the potential to be an elite defender, and has showed he is talented offensively. He can use both hands effectively to score, and is a good free throw shooter. It's too hard to argue this right now considering they're both so young and unproven but Oden should have the better career out of the two.


IMO Oden will be the better defender while Bynum will be the better offensive player but I believe Oden will still be a great offensive player while Bynum will be a great defender as well.

I think both have equal potential.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

I would say Oden has more potential because of the athleticism edge.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

ShaqAttack3234 said:


> IMO Oden will be the better defender while Bynum will be the better offensive player but I believe Oden will still be a great offensive player while Bynum will be a great defender as well.
> 
> I think both have equal potential.


I disagree about equal potential, I think Oden has a chance to be better offensively than Bynum. He can score very effectively with BOTH hands, not something all bigs can do. Add in his great athleticism and good BBIQ, I don't see a reason he can't be a beast offensively. I do think that he'll be the better defender of the two as well, and that could tire him down/get him in foul trouble causing him to score less, though. 

All and all, we'll see next year and for years to come. I'm pretty excited!


----------



## ShaqAttack3234 (Jul 11, 2008)

bballlife said:


> I would say Oden has more potential because of the athleticism edge.


Possibly but Bynum is pretty damn athletic too.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YMltKsoDwe8&feature=related

Drew also has about 2 inches in height and 2 inches in wingspan as well so it evens out IMO.


----------

