# Are we better without Z-Bo?



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Ok, I couldn't even begin to count how many Blazer fans hated on Pritchard for the trade, called Randolph our "best player, no doubt", claimed how horrible the team would be without him. 

So, what are everyone's thoughts now?


A typical conversation back then would consist of:

Fan #1: Zach Randolph, although a good scorer, contributes virtually nothing else to the team. He is horrible defensively and basically a black hole on offense.

Fan #2: 25 and 10.

Fan #1: If he could learn to share the ball and make his teammates better, or be a force defensively, he might be worth keeping. 

Fan #2: 25 and 10.

Fan #1: We need to trade him at all costs. His value is as high as it will ever be, so if we get SOMETHING in return, it will make us better. Addition by subtraction.

Fan #2: 25 and 10.

Fan #1: Is that your only defense? Because he puts up numbers, a near all-star, he's our best player and the team is better with him as the guy?

Fan #2: Did I mention he averages 25 and 10?


I know a lot of you say you were in favor of dealing him, but we could've gotten more, we should've waited. Well, I was happy with any trade involving him, so isn't it evident now that we are clearly better without Zach Randolph?


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

no question.....:worthy: hands down
i can't remember when we were *decent* with zach


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Zach Randolph is a born loser. Trade anyone on your team, even the biggest scrub player for him, and watch the team go back into mediocrity. 

As I've said before, he needed to be traded.


----------



## Blazers2121 (Oct 5, 2006)

Oh easily, I never liked Randolph anyway. Sure, I rooted for him, but that was only because he was a Blazer. He clogged up our offense, forcing bad shots, while playing zero defense on the other end. We have a smarter, more compatible, power forward in Aldridge. This team is WAY better without Randolph.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

look at what he has done to NY. the venom is contagious :devil2:


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Not to be too contrarian, BUT ...

First, yes, we are better than Zach. But I wonder how MUCH better we could be if we'd gotten more value. Then again, I think it was important to trade him when we did. It was a watershed day for this franchise.

But, if the question is only if we're better than Zach ... no question. This is a totally different team.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

It's sad how loaded NY has been with those types of players in recent years


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

c_note said:


> Ok, I couldn't even begin to count how many Blazer fans hated on Pritchard for the trade, called Randolph our "best player, no doubt", claimed how horrible the team would be without him.
> 
> So, what are everyone's thoughts now?
> 
> ...


Well I can go on record and say that I have three witnesses that saw how happy I was on draft day with the Randolph trade. Even a 25 & 10 player is expendable when he holds the team back with his style of play. I think that Portland is better without him and is only going to get better. Sure it's hard to give up on a player like Randolph who IMO was nothing more than a security blanket for Portland and their fans.....now we're seeing growth and growth is good. :biggrin:


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

c_note said:


> It's sad how loaded NY has been with those types of players in recent years


aka no skilled ball hogging thugs


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

The main question I am trying to as is...Are we better with or without him, straight up?

I know we got James Jones indirectly because of the trade, and he's very good role player, but it was basically addition by subtraction and the team is instantly better if he is NOT PLAYING.

Ask this same question a year ago; the poll results would be pretty much comical.

I knew we would eventually be better, but I had no idea THIS MUCH BETTER, and SO QUICKLY. It's absolutely amazing. I love the Blazers!!


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Channing Frye has won us one game, solid. James Jones? Two or three. I feel all right about what we got for Zach right now.


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Portland is better because of what each of the players can do without the ball. If they played the way they're playing right now with Randolph, much of the time it would look like four on five. Defense, ball movement, and playing all of our guys on the offensive end are the keys to this team's success.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I wonder how eager NY was to do that trade. Was it hard for Pritchard to pry away Frye, or were they the aggressors with the whole process? A lot of people flung him crap for settling for so little, but maybe that really was the best he possibly could have done, period.

I'm guessing NY was still pretty high on him, so there was no way he gets traded anywhere unless Francis was involved in the same deal.

They were so desperate to trade Stevie that it back-fired and they ended up pretty much spinning their wheels.


----------



## whatsmyname (Jul 6, 2007)

Who Voted No. Name, Address Now


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

If getting rid of Zach made this team better, that is a damn sad comment on Nate as a coach.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

whatsmyname said:


> Who Voted No. Name, Address Now


I seriously wonder if someone (or two someones, apparently) thinks we would have eeked out more victories at this point. This team is playing over its heads big time. They're doing with great team ball, good ball movement, finding the open man and getting the ball to the guy who's hot that night. None of that would be possible with Zach.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Ok, I couldn't even begin to count how many Blazer fans hated on Pritchard for the trade, called Randolph our "best player, no doubt", claimed how horrible the team would be without him.
> 
> So, what are everyone's thoughts now?
> 
> I know a lot of you say you were in favor of dealing him, but we could've gotten more, we should've waited. Well, I was happy with any trade involving him, so isn't it evident now that we are clearly better without Zach Randolph?


I think we are better now than we were one year ago. This is clearly a result of Brandon Roy's phenomenal play and the team getting older. This is natural with young teams. 

If Zach was here, what would happen? It would still be Roy's team but we would get more rebounds. 

Would we be better? Perhaps. Perhaps not. 

This streak is all about Roy and his leadership on the court with the maturation of the bench play of young guys who are filling into their roles when before they could not play due to inexperience.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Well, yeah we're better this year, but a lot of it has to do with the ball being in Brandon's hand more than Zach's. However, I still think we got jacked on that trade with crap value. We sure could use ZBo on the boards. 

On a similar note, are we better without LaMarcus?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wastro said:


> I seriously wonder if someone (or two someones, apparently) thinks we would have eeked out more victories at this point. This team is playing over its heads big time. They're doing with great team ball, good ball movement, finding the open man and getting the ball to the guy who's hot that night. None of that would be possible with Zach.


Then would it not be possible with LaMarcus? Zach averages double the # of assists than LMA. 

Not saying that its significant but just wanted to let you know.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Then would it not be possible with LaMarcus? Zach averages double the # of assists than LMA.
> 
> Not saying that its significant but just wanted to let you know.


Well, what I meant is that Zach wasn't a great team player. He was good at crashing the offensive boards, but often, he was going after his own miss. He didn't get back on defense, putting us at a disadvantage. He wouldn't always be back quickly on offense, so it took more time to get into the offense. He wasn't as good at passing out of double teams. And he wasn't as good as swinging the ball out of isolation plays. LaMarcus already has a jump on him in all these areas. And he wasn't great at setting screens.

And those are the areas that don't necessarily show up in the box score but dramatically alter how the team plays on the court. And I think LaMarcus fills those gaps.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

It was a function of who was around him at the time. Seriously, take a look at the rosters Zach was on. If your best other offensive option on the team is Juan Dixon, I think hogging the ball is the right move. Its a similar situation in NY right now. He has a bunch of combo guards with no direction on his wings. A decent ball handler and getting rid of a few guys and they should be ok in the long term. They just need to fire Isiah and get a good GM who will draft well and get rid of a lot of their redundant players and low talent/producing players, much like how we got rid of Stoudamire, Dixon, Derek Anderson, etc a few years ago.

Getting rid of two useless players in Francis (with his bad contract) and Frye was a good move in the right direction. They just have to do that for a few more of their useless players.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> It was a function of who was around him at the time. Seriously, take a look at the rosters Zach was on. If your best other offensive option on the team is Juan Dixon, I think hogging the ball is the right move.
> 
> Getting rid of two useless players in Francis (with his bad contract) and Frye was a good move in the right direction. They just have to do that for a few more of their useless players.


The roster from last year is virtually equivalent to this year's squad. Add Frye, Jones and Blake, subtract Randolph.

Who cares what the case was 3-4 years ago. We are comparing this year vs. last year. It is impossible for you to defend Zach whatsoever. Nice try though.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> The roster from last year is virtually equivalent to this year's squad. Add Frye, Jones and Blake, subtract Randolph.
> 
> Who cares what the case was 3-4 years ago. We are comparing this year vs. last year. It is impossible for you to defend Zach whatsoever. Nice try though.


Well, except Roy, Sergio and LMA are no longer rookies and Outlaw finally developed, as has Martell Webster. When you draft young, your younger players will get better as time goes on. Its basic common sense. 



So in no instance is the roster "virtually equivalent" since the players all got a year of experience in this league, which is critically important. To disregard that is incredibly shortsighted. 

Its similar to comparing the early season blazers before this streak versus now. When the blazers just started getting together, they played decent at times and bad at others. Growing pains. 

Now that they've had time to acclimate and gel, they are playing more comfortably led behind Roy's fantastic play.


and don't give me this "nice try though" crap. I will run circles around you. guaranteed.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I don't think you can go all the way with the "It was a different team" argument. Zach didn't always get back on defense OR offense, which inhibited the team's ability to set up. He wasn't great at passing out of double teams. He shot about 44-45%. He couldn't swing the ball out of isolation plays. He took a lot of BAD shots. He never blocked shots. He wasn't a quick decision-maker, which slowed ball movement and ate up time on the clock.

Those are Zach problems, not "the rest of the team" problems.

I do think you have some good points, though, and the make-up of this team makes it hard to simply and easily compare. Are we better? Yes. Is it BECAUSE of Zach being gone? Partly, yes. But some of the factors your mentioned -- like experience -- ARE important to how this team grows and plays together.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> Well, except Roy, Sergio and LMA are no longer rookies and Outlaw finally developed, as has Martell Webster. When you draft young, your younger players will get better as time goes on. Its basic common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ok man, if you wanna go, I'm all for it. After all, I haven't been wrong yet :biggrin:

According to you, it is just coincidence that Randolph left and the team got better. You attribute this to 
"the young players getting better". While this makes some sense, the amount of sense is very minute.

It is glaringly obvious to almost everyone else now that it is Zach's ABSENCE that is making the team better. More minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more. 

You can't even remotely suggest Randolph would make the team better and expect to not get laughed at. 

It IS the same team minus Randolph plus a few role players. The SAME team with more opportunities now.
The same team WITHOUT the suppression of Zach Randolph in the lineup. 


Your turn.:cheers:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wastro said:


> I don't think you can go all the way with the "It was a different team" argument. Zach didn't always get back on defense OR offense, which inhibited the team's ability to set up. He wasn't great at passing out of double teams. He shot about 44-45%. He couldn't swing the ball out of isolation plays. He took a lot of BAD shots. He never blocked shots. He wasn't a quick decision-maker, which slowed ball movement and ate up time on the clock.


Sure, you can't go "all the way" with this argument but I think we would be more solid with some rebounding and low post scoring. Last year, Zach was markedly improved with his passing out of double teams...do you know why...HE ACTUALLY HAD PEOPLE TO PASS TO FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!! I mean, now if we get an offensive rebound, we're all in shock and awe because its such a rare occurance. Having Raef LaFrentz get an Offensive Board and a put back is somehow now amazing. 

And now, with Martell more comfortable shooting and Roy just filling out his game even better I think Zach's presence on this team would solidify a playoff birth. 

Not saying we won't get one now, but to have that many solid offensive weapons on a continuous basis would have been nice. 

And his "not getting back on defense" is a bunch of bunk. When you actually look at Zach's performance versus the guys he matches up against, they don't perform out of the ordinary. Right now, our interior defense is still pretty bad. And we even have Pryzbilla in there now versus last year when we didn't and had Magliore. Granted, LMA is blocking shots, is Frye really that much of an improvement on Zach? Don't think so because he doesn't even get that much PT.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> It is glaringly obvious to almost everyone else now that it is Zach's ABSENCE that is making the team better. More minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more.


Would you say LaMarcus' absence is making the team better. Because they are playing better without a power forward. There are more minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more. 

Again, Zach averages double the number of assists that LMA does. And he's recently been getting 4-5 assists a night in fact. 

Or are we not counting that now?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> According to you, it is just coincidence that Randolph left and the team got better. You attribute this to
> "the young players getting better". While this makes some sense, the amount of sense is very minute.


How is it Minute? From going from a chaotic team to a complete revamp of the roster and you want instant results? 

Last year: 
Travis Outlaw- GREEN
Martell Webster- GREEN
Brandon Roy- ROOKIE
LaMarcus Aldridge- ROOKIE
Sergio Rodriguez- ROOKIE

Even with that, Zach played better team ball than in years past. 

A year in the league and a summer and training camp afterwards does wonders to players. This is just basic basketball here. The more you play the game in real game situations, the better you're going to get. Its not minute differences here.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> It IS the same team minus Randolph plus a few role players. The SAME team with more opportunities now.


So if Zach wasn't on this team last season, we would be as good as we are right now? 


















That's what I thought.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Zach averages 2 assists per night, and LMA averages about 1. So saying he averages double isn't a huge thing. 

And do you remember the game in Orlando last year, when the Orlando announcers were calling out Randolph on how worthless he was, since he was barely back to half-court on defense so many times? It was embarrassing. It's not bunk. It wasn't just that one game, either. There were a lot of times when the offense would move the ball up the floor and have to stop for a few seconds while Zach got into position. LMA runs the floor much better than Zach, so the Blazers are getting valuable seconds of clock time with that.

And how many times did Zach try and fight through double teams? This year, the team is much more patient with double teams and finding the open man. The offense seems to run much smoother, which is obviously thanks to a number of reasons. But when you remove your top scorer, and the offense improves, that's saying something. Zach was a huge part of it.

I'll say this, though. Zach was pretty clutch for us last year, and who knows if he would have rebounded his way to a couple more Blazer wins? There's a chance he would have fumbled away a few losses with turnovers, too. Zach is averaging 1 more turnover per game than LaMarcus.

See, Zach needs the ball to be really effective. So does Roy. And when you're putting the ball in someone's hand, I'd rather it went to Brandon than Zach every day of the week. Brandon can do more with the ball than Zach.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

wastro said:


> I don't think you can go all the way with the "It was a different team" argument. Zach didn't always get back on defense OR offense, which inhibited the team's ability to set up. He wasn't great at passing out of double teams. He shot about 44-45%. He *couldn't* swing the ball out of isolation plays. He took a lot of BAD shots. He never blocked shots. He wasn't a quick decision-maker, which slowed ball movement and ate up time on the clock.


not so much couldn't as wouldn't. 

Zach had the skills to be a productive part of a winning team (NCAA championship), but he was paid and expected to be the focus of the team's attack... he still does. In other words the expectations/his ego had become bigger then his skillset. No way could a team be truly successful with him as the focus of their attack. If he could have taken a pay cut and a reduction of both his minutes and role I think he could have been a solid contributer... but of course his max deal is guaranteed and idiots like Jason Quick would have been stoking the gossip fires with his simmering discontent over any reduction in his minutes/role.

I liked the trade from the get go for this reasoning

STOMP


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> Would you say LaMarcus' absence is making the team better. Because they are playing better without a power forward. There are more minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more.
> 
> Again, Zach averages double the number of assists that LMA does. And he's recently been getting 4-5 assists a night in fact.
> 
> Or are we not counting that now?


Ok I guess I have to spell this out for you.

Differences between LMA and Randolph:

LMA runs fast breaks.
LMA blocks shots, plays solid man defense. 
LMA doesn't get blocked every 3rd shot he takes.
LMA DOES get back on defense faster.


Conclusion: LMA can contribute almost equally to Zach offensively. He is at times unstoppable, he spreads the defense, he is great off pick-and-rolls.

Meanwhile, the team is not hemorrhaging points profusely on defense while LMA is in the game.

Do you see the difference? Yes it would be nice to have Z-Bo's inside scoring and rebound. But what he adds on the surface is canceled out by the intangibles he isn't able to bring, unlike LMA.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wastro said:


> And do you remember the game in Orlando last year, when the Orlando announcers were calling out Randolph on how worthless he was, since he was barely back to half-court on defense so many times? It was embarrassing. It's not bunk. It wasn't just that one game, either. There were a lot of times when the offense would move the ball up the floor and have to stop for a few seconds while Zach got into position. LMA runs the floor much better than Zach, so the Blazers are getting valuable seconds of clock time with that.


I don't recall that game. 

I'm not saying he hustled down the floor every time. HOWEVER, there were times where he would also be the only one on the floor that could or would put the ball in the hole or get the offensive board for an easy put-back. These baskets have essentially disappeared.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Would you say LaMarcus' absence is making the team better. Because they are playing better without a power forward. There are more minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more.
> 
> Again, Zach averages double the number of assists that LMA does. And he's recently been getting 4-5 assists a night in fact.
> 
> Or are we not counting that now?


You're wasting your breath. Hate is not a rational emotion.

My big question, is who "they" are going to turn on next? If the team goes back to playing .500 ball after LMA returns, it will probably be him.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> So if Zach wasn't on this team last season, we would be as good as we are right now?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is a dumb, loaded question, and it's not even relevant to the discussion. Of course it's impossible to say we would be as good with any certainty, but it's obvious we are better now, and would have been better last year.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Ok I guess I have to spell this out for you.
> 
> Differences between LMA and Randolph:
> 
> ...


Why are you comparing Zach and LMA? During the major stretch of this run, neither LMA nor Zach played. 

Also, we didn't trade Zach for LMA.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> That is a dumb, loaded question, and it's not even relevant to the discussion. Of course it's impossible to say we would be as good with any certainty, but it's obvious we are better now, and would have been better last year.


We would have been better WITHOUT Zach last year? OK. If you really think so. I disagree.

And loaded questions? Talk about the pot calling the kettle.....


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> Why are you comparing Zach and LMA? During the major stretch of this run, neither LMA nor Zach played.
> 
> Also, we didn't trade Zach for LMA.


Did you already forget this comment you made not more than 5 minutes ago?

"Would you say LaMarcus' absence is making the team better. Because they are playing better without a power forward. There are more minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more.

Again, Zach averages double the number of assists that LMA does. And he's recently been getting 4-5 assists a night in fact.

Or are we not counting that now?"


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

My opinion hasn't changed since the beginning. It was a solution that wasn't going to be immediate. It's started to work itself out a lot sooner than I expected though.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wastro said:


> And how many times did Zach try and fight through double teams? This year, the team is much more patient with double teams and finding the open man. The offense seems to run much smoother, which is obviously thanks to a number of reasons. But when you remove your top scorer, and the offense improves, that's saying something. Zach was a huge part of it.
> 
> I'll say this, though. Zach was pretty clutch for us last year, and who knows if he would have rebounded his way to a couple more Blazer wins? There's a chance he would have fumbled away a few losses with turnovers, too. Zach is averaging 1 more turnover per game than LaMarcus.
> 
> See, Zach needs the ball to be really effective. So does Roy. And when you're putting the ball in someone's hand, I'd rather it went to Brandon than Zach every day of the week. Brandon can do more with the ball than Zach.


I think Zach can also function as getting garbage points off good guard play and misses. I prefer the ball in Brandon's hand too, but that's not saying Zach would have totally killed this team we have now. We are at a level where we have good players who are finally growing into their own roles.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

I am also really amazed at how night-and-day this year is vs. last year. I suspected we would really struggle without Randolph AND Oden this year, but would eventually be better at the end of the year or next year. 

But what has happened thus far really shows how much of a cancer he was to team chemistry (on the court). Off the court is debatable too.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Did you already forget this comment you made not more than 5 minutes ago?
> 
> "Would you say LaMarcus' absence is making the team better. Because they are playing better without a power forward. There are more minutes to go around, more shots to go around, not to mention the ball going around more.
> 
> ...


I was posing a question to you. If the absence of Zach makes this team better since we are playing better team ball, would you say the absence of LMA does as well since we are playing better team ball with him gone as well. 

FURTHERMORE, since team ball is your primary focus here, by virtue of Zach having more assists than LMA, would you say he is a better "team player"?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> I am also really amazed at how night-and-day this year is vs. last year. I suspected we would really struggle without Randolph AND Oden this year, but would eventually be better at the end of the year or next year.
> 
> But what has happened thus far really shows how much of a cancer he was to team chemistry (on the court). Off the court is debatable too.


I knew with or without Randolph we would be fine. We got a huge talent upgrade with Roy and Aldridge here, as with the development of Webster and Outlaw and Sergio. Also, the steady PG play of Blake versus the shoot first mentality of having Jarrett Jack at the point. 

I just wish we had gotten better compensation for him. Some tougher rebounding hustle guys, for example.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I think we can safely say who at least one of the voters were. 

I gotta go to bed, but I'll say this. It's actually a hard question to answer. YES, we are better than last year. But is it JUST BECAUSE of Zach being gone? No. LMA is a contributor. Jones is a sharpshooter. Blake is back. Outlaw has impressed. Roy has improved. There are a lot of factors making this team better. 

Is Zach's absence one of those factors? It is. But you can interpret that different ways. You can say Zach's absence is a good thing for several of the reasons that have been listed in this thread. You can say it's a bad thing, because we would score more and have more boards if Zach was around. Or you can say that his absence doesn't make a difference.

I think there's some validity to at least the first two stances. It's not a simple, cut-and-dry answer.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> I think Zach can also function as getting garbage points off good guard play and misses. I prefer the ball in Brandon's hand too, but that's not saying Zach would have totally killed this team we have now. We are at a level where we have good players who are finally growing into their own roles.


Man, if you cannot see HOW Zach makes the team worse, you are blind to basketball, period. You followed the team last year, right? And this year obviously. Yet your opinion COMPLETELY contradicts reality. 

Zach totally kills the team we have. Let me present the evidence.

Exhibit A: Last year
Exhibit B: This year

I rest my case.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

wastro said:


> I think we can safely say who at least one of the voters were.
> 
> I gotta go to bed, but I'll say this. It's actually a hard question to answer. YES, we are better than last year. But is it JUST BECAUSE of Zach being gone? No. LMA is a contributor. Jones is a sharpshooter. Blake is back. Outlaw has impressed. Roy has improved. There are a lot of factors making this team better.


Almost all of this occurred because of his absence. It opened the door for other players to step it up, and they did. It gave them the opportunity. 

I guarantee you Outlaw would not be NEAR as good with Zach. Martell would STILL be solely a corner jump-shooter. Roy would still be letting go of the ball and watching it gravitate to the left block.
After all, you can't defy the laws of physics.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Man, if you cannot see HOW Zach makes the team worse, you are blind to basketball, period. You followed the team last year, right? And this year obviously. Yet your opinion COMPLETELY contradicts reality.
> 
> Zach totally kills the team we have. Let me present the evidence.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, you'll need to show me exactly since your above example shows how flimsy your argument is. You've done nothing except use rhetoric and cynism without actually backing up your points. 

The teams ARE different no matter how you spin it. The play of the Blazers overall is improved, having Zach here would not have the negligible effect you think it will. 

Put Zach on this year's squad, we'll be just as good. 

You seem to have more faith in how "terrible" Zach is than you have faith about how good the Blazers as a whole are.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> Almost all of this occurred because of his absence. It opened the door for other players to step it up, and they did. It gave them the opportunity.
> 
> I guarantee you Outlaw would not be NEAR as good with Zach. Martell would STILL be solely a corner jump-shooter. Roy would still be letting go of the ball and watching it gravitate to the left block.
> After all, you can't defy the laws of physics.


Outlaw just started attacking the basket and played with more passion and agressiveness incited by an incident a few weeks ago where some player on the Kings or whatever pissed him off. He got a taste and ran with it. Martell had serious mental issues last season this was pretty evident. 

And you think Roy would be just passive and watching the ball if Randolph was here? Please, you're insulting Roy and his great play with that comment.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

c_note said:


> Almost all of this occurred because of his absence. It opened the door for other players to step it up, and they did. It gave them the opportunity.
> 
> I guarantee you Outlaw would not be NEAR as good with Zach. Martell would STILL be solely a corner jump-shooter. Roy would still be letting go of the ball and watching it gravitate to the left block.
> After all, you can't defy the laws of physics.



All of which makes a strong case for saying Nate can't handle his players and doesn't know how to use them to maximum effect.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> I was posing a question to you. If the absence of Zach makes this team better since we are playing better team ball, would you say the absence of LMA does as well since we are playing better team ball with him gone as well.
> 
> FURTHERMORE, since team ball is your primary focus here, by virtue of Zach having more assists than LMA, would you say he is a better "team player"?


I see the point you are trying to make, but it just isn't valid. It is true, LMA does slow down the offense, I'll give you that. When he gets the ball, he looks to score. But team basketball is about so much more than passing out of a double team, which is all Zach does. 

If you've ever played basketball, you know it doesn't matter how much you score if the other team scores more. The NBA is all about making stops on defense. Everyone can score, but the best can play defense, too.

I've never seen Randolph run back on defense just in time to swat a wide-open layin, then haul *** up court again for an alley-oop. 

That play right there is the epitome of LMA and his superiority over Randolph in a TEAM environment.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

c_note said:


> I see the point you are trying to make, but it just isn't valid. It is true, LMA does slow down the offense, I'll give you that. When he gets the ball, he looks to score. But team basketball is about so much more than passing out of a double team, which is all Zach does.
> 
> If you've ever played basketball, you know it doesn't matter how much you score if the other team scores more. The NBA is all about making stops on defense. Everyone can score, but the best can play defense, too.
> 
> ...


And we're still 3rd worst in the league in Rebound/Steals/Block differentials. Our defensive stats (which are measureable) are still low.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Oldmangrouch said:


> All of which makes a strong case for saying Nate can't handle his players and doesn't know how to use them to maximum effect.


It does, and I really hated McMillan until this year. I think he is a horrible coach as far as player management, as last year was evidence of. But he is so great with play-calling, overall scheme, flow and game management, he is great for the team we have currently.

I won't hold it against him anymore though, as I feel a lot of it was probably just showcasing.

But yes, his greatest weakness is the distribution of minutes among his players. He didn't get it right once 
until this year, when Jarrett Jack finally took his rightful place on the bench.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Xericx said:


> And we're still 3rd worst in the league in Rebound/Steals/Block differentials. Our defensive stats (which are measureable) are still low.


Really? Still low? Ok, lets get into some stats.

2006-07 Season:
Opposing FG%: 47.1% 6th WORST in the league.

2007-08 Season:
Opposing FG%: 44.7% 8th BEST in the league.

Easily the most indicative defensive stat.

How do you like them apples?


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

No disrespect c note, but this is an easy question to answer. Our current record speaks for itself. Our team defense is MUCH better this year, and Zach being gone is one of the main reasons for that IMO.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hmmm it seems some have forgotten that Lamarcus was a big part of this win streak in the beginning, including hitting the shots from the line that put Portland into overtime against Milwaukee. Short memories folks. 

As for the poll, can I vote once per day, like the nba all star voting?:biggrin:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm as thrilled as anyone at the success of this team. watching them perform so well definitely takes the sting off the Randolph trade. 

would we have a better record with Zach? probably not. but as has been pointed out many times by just about everyone here, this year is not about having a winning record. it's about setting us up to contend for a title in a few years. 

although Boob No More has made a good case otherwise, I still have a nagging feeling like we'd be even better positioned to contend for a title if we'd traded Zach sometime during this season. I think we could've gotten more value, and consequently be better armed down the road. 

however, if James Jones proves he's just not on a freaky good streak I'll gladly eat my words. if Channing Frye can string more good games together at his natural backup power forward position, ditto. if Fernandez lives up to his Euro play, ditto once more. 

many who loved the trade generally argued that value didn't matter--it was all about getting Zach off the team. I still hate that mindset. 

my big objection has always been that we didn't get enough value. it's starting to look like I vastly underrated the value of the pieces we got in exchange. I couldn't be happier to be wrong, and this wouldn't be the first time Pritchard saw diamond where everyone else saw coal. 

as I've said elsewhere, though, the Randolph trade is a little like the Rasheed trade. it'll take a few years to fully come to terms with how truly good or how truly bad it turned out. a month ago the Randolph trade looked abysmal. this month it looks genius. a month from now it could look horrible again.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually if you read the Portland Tribune article (linked on another thread), it is really interesting hearing what some opposition had to say. Such as the Utah assistant who said that Portland finally got rid of all the knuckleheads holding them back.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mook said:


> I'm as thrilled as anyone at the success of this team. watching them perform so well definitely takes the sting off the Randolph trade.
> 
> would we have a better record with Zach? probably not. but as has been pointed out many times by just about everyone here, this year is not about having a winning record. it's about setting us up to contend for a title in a few years.
> 
> ...


I agree. Even if we did not play Zach more than 10-15 minutes a game, I imagine his impact would still be greater than Channing Frye's at the current time. That's not saying Frye won't get better in the long run.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

mook said:


> I'm as thrilled as anyone at the success of this team. watching them perform so well definitely takes the sting off the Randolph trade.
> 
> would we have a better record with Zach? probably not. but as has been pointed out many times by just about everyone here, this year is not about having a winning record. it's about setting us up to contend for a title in a few years.
> 
> ...



At the same time I believe you over rate what Zbo is worth. After years of having to watch this Zbo dominated team operate, I believe many fans forgot exactly what elements makes a team win, and began to confuse statistics with good performance. If you go out, and watch other teams play, you realize how bad it was here. One guy holding the ball in one spot, standing around. No movement. No hustle. No running the court to get back on defense. 

Half of the game is on the court effort, and that is the half that Zbo will never have. 

This year, I don't have to scream at Zbo to run the court while his guy dunks on the other end. This year I don't have to watch Zbo chew up the whole shot clock dribbling in one spot and then jacking up an outside jumper. This year I don't have to worry at the end of the game that the team will be waiting for Zbo to do something, because the ball is in Roys hands, where he can create for himself, or others. 

If you have have forgotten what it was like, read the bottom paragraph of this article. It should ring some bells as to what it was like here if you have forgotten:

http://knicks.lohudblogs.com/2007/12/18/thomas-almost-tells-the-truth/


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Yes. This year we're just screaming for the team to get a rebound or to score inside. 

Do you really think that with a full complement of good players around him, Zach is going to be the first and only option on the offense? The offense would not to be built around him, he can get garbage points and work off the rest of the team. 

Like I said, in the past he just didn't have the talent levels around him for him NOT to dominate the ball.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Yes. This year we're just screaming for the team to get a rebound or to score inside.
> 
> Do you really think that with a full complement of good players around him, Zach is going to be the first and only option on the offense? The offense would not to be built around him, he can get garbage points and work off the rest of the team.
> 
> Like I said, in the past he just didn't have the talent levels around him for him NOT to dominate the ball.



That is not true. He is in NY now, and he doesn't pass the ball there either. A lot of the guys in NY are very established players. 

As for the rebounding, Portland plays a lot of zone. When you play zone you give up boards, it is not a good rebounding positioning type of defense. What it does do is lowers most opponents field goal percentage into the ground because they take a lot of outside shots. 

Lastly, points in the paint. Just because one particular guy isn't scoring the points in the paint doesn't mean it isn't happening. Portlands offense is better this year, and more players are getting looks coming down the lane because the ball movemement and spacing is better, and all of the forwards left on the team are capable of making a dive to the basket, something Zbo could never do.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Name the established players in NY.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Zach the garbage man we saw when he just came into the league would have been a valuable piece of this team, but this guy left the building once he got a max-contract and became "the man".

Zach, making $20m over 4 years, playing 15 minutes/game for 10 points, 5 rebounds and questionable defense would have been a fantastic asset. Zach making max money, playing 35 minutes/game, dominating the ball movement and stinking the defense for practically the entire game had to be moved. KP and company realized it and did it - and the NY Knicks understand why now, and Portland's success illustrate it.

Would the ball be so often in Brandon's hand if Zach was dominating it? Would Travis had the room to elevate and penetrate with Zach dominating the ball? Would there be any chance of good defense with him playing major minutes? Would LaMarcus get the run and touches he needs with Zach on the floor? What about Pryzbilla?


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

whatsmyname said:


> Who Voted No. Name, Address Now


I know LOL who in there right mind would vote no? More then likely some jealous NY trolls.
ANYONE with half a brain knows the correct answer to this question.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Portland's offense is better this year because Roy and Outlaw are attacking the basket. We're basically playing Phoenix suns/Dallas Mavs type of basketball. High offensive output. 

Listen, I was never saying lets keep Zach forever. Once Oden was drafted, Zach was on the trading block and I've been a fan of his, probably one of his biggest supporters. I just think, and still do, that we should have held onto him to gauge his value. Nothing more. Nothing was really gained by trading Zach. And I don't think nothing would have been lost had we kept him. 

I never stated that he was long term part of this plan.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> Zach the garbage man we saw when he just came into the league would have been a valuable piece of this team, but this guy left the building once he got a max-contract and became "the man".
> 
> Zach, making $20m over 4 years, playing 15 minutes/game for 10 points, 5 rebounds and questionable defense would have been a fantastic asset. Zach making max money, playing 35 minutes/game, dominating the ball movement and stinking the defense for practically the entire game had to be moved. KP and company realized it and did it - and the NY Knicks understand why now, and Portland's success illustrate it.
> 
> Would the ball be so often in Brandon's hand if Zach was dominating it? Would Travis had the room to elevate and penetrate with Zach dominating the ball? Would there be any chance of good defense with him playing major minutes? Would LaMarcus get the run and touches he needs with Zach on the floor? What about Pryzbilla?



Portland's success is not a result of Zach NOT being here. Its a result of good play and maturity of young players in the league coming into their own. 

If Zach was still here, would the ball be in Brandon's hand as much? Who knows. Zach was here last year and Roy was still good enough to be rookie of the year last year. 

Travis Outlaw's surge is a direct result not because of the "room he has to elevate" (whatever that means) but by his own increased agressiveness on the floor. He was playing horribly in the first part of the season and wasn't until he found his aggressive nature that he elevated his play.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Portland's offense is better this year because Roy and Outlaw are attacking the basket. We're basically playing Phoenix suns/Dallas Mavs type of basketball. High offensive output.


Yes, and that would not happened with Zach on the roster, he is just not that kind of a player, especially if he is a dominant part of the team and he was here, there is no way magical way to change it.

I loved watching Zach work in the paint. The guy is a shorter version of Hakeem with some of his footwork. He is that good. But, at the end of the day - a smart investor knows when to hold and when to take his licks and fold his cards - and so far KP has done nothing short of a fantastic job - and the team's success so far, even with the injuries - is the proof.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> Yes, and that would not happened with Zach on the roster, he is just not that kind of a player, especially if he is a dominant part of the team and he was here, there is no way magical way to change it.
> 
> I loved watching Zach work in the paint. The guy is a shorter version of Hakeem with some of his footwork. He is that good. But, at the end of the day - a smart investor knows when to hold and when to take his licks and fold his cards - and so far KP has done nothing short of a fantastic job - and the team's success so far, even with the injuries - is the proof.


Then explain how Brandon got ROY of the year last year with Zach on the team. If Zach was that terrible, how could Roy even succeed last year? I mean, he takes 80% of the team's shots ffs.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

You can defend Zach all you want, but we are better this year without Zach Randolph. I think you take that a couple of different ways.

#1 Are we a better team this year? Yes.

#2 Is Zach Randolph on the team? No.

Therefore we are a better team without Zach Randolph.

Now the question that everyone seems to be debating is would we be a better team right now if Zach Randolph was still on the team. Who knows and who cares.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Sug said:


> You can defend Zach all you want, but we are better this year without Zach Randolph. I think you take that a couple of different ways.
> 
> #1 Are we a better team this year? Yes.
> 
> ...


Hey, I'm not the one starting these threads. I'm just replying as I don't agree with the big Zach Bash fest going on. The Blazers are playing well. Its ridiculous to think that they would all magically suck if Zach WAS here.


----------



## Sug (Aug 7, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Hey, I'm not the one starting these threads. I'm just replying as I don't agree with the big Zach Bash fest going on. The Blazers are playing well. Its ridiculous to think that they would all magically suck if Zach WAS here.


Here is the deal. People no longer discuss Sheed. It takes time, but if you stop defending Zbo it will die a lot faster. Trades are a lot like a divorce, and you are never going to convince an X that the person they are no longer with is worth squat. So you can defend Zbo all you want, but in the end you are just making the conversation last longer. Let them bash him, let them complain, let them celebrate. What does it matter what 40+ people in Portland think about Zach Randolph? You know how you feel, they know how they feel. I don't think anyone is asking to have their mind changed on the issue. If Zach were still a Blazer I would say debate the topic all you want, but at this point there is no point because dude no longer wears the PTB jersey.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I didn't like Z-Bo at all and wanted him gone. I can understand why the Z-Bo fans were upset because I was even hoping we could get more. Right now with the way Jones is playing and Rudy coming over next year it isn't looking as bad as I thought. I have been a little disappointed in Frye but I even think he has come around a little and now think he will make a good LMA backup next year.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Then explain how Brandon got ROY of the year last year with Zach on the team. If Zach was that terrible, how could Roy even succeed last year? I mean, he takes 80% of the team's shots ffs.


Brandon was good last year, but people were questioning if he is ever going to be an elite guard in this league. It is pretty clear that Brandon is making a jump this year, from being a good offensive guard that is not an elite guard, but could maybe get an all-star appearance at some point (Jason Richardson, for example) to a team leader, offensive focal point and a guy that can carry the team. Would he be able to do it with Zach dominating the ball as much as he did last year? I have my doubts. He would have progressed, for sure, but he would not be the back to back player of the week we just noticed.

Zach, as a garbage man in limited minutes (because he is a defensive liability) with a reasonable salary - is an asset. Zach, as a ball hogging, large minute/per game, max player is not. With that in mind, he had to be moved sooner or later - and it seems that while people were wondering if he was moved too soon and the Blazers will have another year as high-lottery participants - the team's latest play shows that he was not moved too soon.

The next question is, was he moved for too little? I think that the fact that NY crumble with him, to the point that people there wax nostalgic on last year's team that at least "had a heart" - should tell you something else. Frye, Jones + Pick (Rudy) is probably more than anyone will be willing to give for him from now on, especially now that more people are exposed to his impact on wins in his current capacity and salary.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

andalusian said:


> Brandon was good last year, but people were questioning if he is ever going to be an elite guard in this league. It is pretty clear that Brandon is making a jump this year, from being a good offensive guard that is not an elite guard, but could maybe get an all-star appearance at some point (Jason Richardson, for example) to a team leader, offensive focal point and a guy that can carry the team. Would he be able to do it with Zach dominating the ball as much as he did last year? I have my doubts. He would have progressed, for sure, but he would not be the back to back player of the week we just noticed.
> 
> Zach, as a garbage man in limited minutes (because he is a defensive liability) with a reasonable salary - is an asset. Zach, as a ball hogging, large minute/per game, max player is not. With that in mind, he had to be moved sooner or later - and it seems that while people were wondering if he was moved too soon and the Blazers will have another year as high-lottery participants - the team's latest play shows that he was not moved too soon.
> 
> The next question is, was he moved for too little? I think that the fact that NY crumble with him, to the point that people there wax nostalgic on last year's team that at least "had a heart" - should tell you something else. Frye, Jones + Pick (Rudy) is probably more than anyone will be willing to give for him from now on, especially now that more people are exposed to his impact on wins in his current capacity and salary.


I was in the camp for "later". I still don't like what we got in that trade. Rudy and Jones were side thoughts that I still believe we could have worked out. Next year, when Webster gets even better due to maturity, I think he may make James Jones a bit redundant...but I've loved Jones this year. Rudy is interesting because we are one of the few teams with the rich owner that would buy out his Euro-contract AND had the luxury of being able to wait for a first round draft pick for a year.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Xericx said:


> I was in the camp for "later". I still don't like what we got in that trade. Rudy and Jones were side thoughts that I still believe we could have worked out. Next year, when Webster gets even better due to maturity, I think he may make James Jones a bit redundant...but I've loved Jones this year. Rudy is interesting because we are one of the few teams with the rich owner that would buy out his Euro-contract AND had the luxury of being able to wait for a first round draft pick for a year.


I go on business trips to Europe about once a year, so I got to see several Rudy games on TV - and I am impressed. Will it translate to the NBA? I certainly do not know - but if it does - he might be as good as Roy... - the kid is fantastic.

When people were saying the Blazers will be a 25 wins team this year - I thought they will at least match last year's 32 win total without Oden. It seems that I was wrong and they are on pace for better than last year - I have no problems saying that what KP and company have done has proved to be, pretty much, 100% on target so far. Until proven otherwise, I am going with KP knew what he was doing, Nate knows what he is doing and this team is better without Zach.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Xericx said:


> Hey, I'm not the one starting these threads. I'm just replying as I don't agree with the big Zach Bash fest going on. The Blazers are playing well. Its ridiculous to think that they would all magically suck if Zach WAS here.


I'm playing the fence on this one. I agree that the Blazers would still be good this year if Zach were here. Roy would still rock, Outlaw would still be playing better, Jones.... But those players would have gotten a little less time on the court and a little less time with the ball when on the court. So they may not have improved quite to the level they have. Especially when you take ball movement into account. I like Zach and think he would be great on certain teams, but the Blazers are just not a good fit for him. The Bulls would be a great fit. 

The big problem I had with the trade is that the Blazers got squat back, or at least that's what I thought at the time. But Rudy is still overseas, and the lack of Zach's contract may also prove important in the long run. 

Overall, my anger over the trade has passed and I think there is a decent chance I was wrong. This team needed room to grow into their own, and Zach may have stunted that growth even if he did bring an extra win or so.


----------



## BlazerFan22 (Jul 4, 2006)

ZBo is a good player he can score on any PF in the league no doubt. He needs to be in a half court offence and the Blazers wanted to run. So for the Blazers we are better without him yes.


----------



## HurraKane212 (Aug 2, 2007)

Sug said:


> Here is the deal. People no longer discuss Sheed. It takes time, but if you stop defending Zbo it will die a lot faster. Trades are a lot like a divorce, and you are never going to convince an X that the person they are no longer with is worth squat. So you can defend Zbo all you want, but in the end you are just making the conversation last longer. Let them bash him, let them complain, let them celebrate. What does it matter what 40+ people in Portland think about Zach Randolph? You know how you feel, they know how they feel. I don't think anyone is asking to have their mind changed on the issue. If Zach were still a Blazer I would say debate the topic all you want, but at this point there is no point because dude no longer wears the PTB jersey.


From a person who works in the legal field (and unfortunately, too much divorce law) that's a great allegory.


----------

