# Is Zach REALLY our future?



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Looks like Sheed propped him up and made him look good.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Looks like Sheed propped him up and made him look good.


it's pretty early to make a statement like that. ZBo scores his points late in the game when the D relaxes.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Looks like Sheed propped him up and made him look good.


holy crap kid, do you know how to say ANYTHING positive?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

If anything, Nathan has been accused of being _too_ positive.

Dan


----------



## carolinablazerfan (Jul 20, 2003)

Zach doesn't have a all around game thats obvious, I know he's young and he will get better, I'm just not to excited to think he's the franchises future, and I hated to hear Nash say that Zach was all most untouchable, I know there will be plenty of people who disagree but Zach is a garbage player, he's good at hanging around the paint and picking up second chance points which is great but he can't create his own shot , can't pass, can't dribble and forces a lot of shots. I just don't think that kind of game warrants an untouchable tag from management.

I hope Zach proves me wrong and makes me regret saying such I just don't think he will. and just for the record we need a SG very badly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Looks like Sheed propped him up and made him look good.


Let's not forget that when Randolph replaced Wallace in the lineup last season, during Wallace's suspension, Randolph had a bunch of great games, including a 30+ point / 20+ rebound night.

No Wallace to prop him up then.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

My theory is, Randolph needs (at this stage of his career) the proper complimentary players. Sabonis and Pippen filled much of the support role that Wallace has provided this year, which I think is what carried him through that 7 game stretch so successfully. That and the fact that no one had scouted him.

But as for tradiing franchise players, anyone look at Paul Pierce's line tonight?  32 minutes, 1-6, 4 points, 1 assist, 6 turnovers. Yikes. I may have to rethink my support of acquiring him and willingness to overlook the shooting slump...

Dan


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Minstrel- the 30-20 game was NOT during the suspension is what near the end of the season and we LOST that game.

Z-Bo looks TERRIBLE without SHeed right now. Terrible


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Hey, remember that Zach doesn't have the benfit of playing with a decent PG, or within a decent offensive system which will create good looks for him like most other low post threats. He has to bang and grind his way to every hoop.

What is the correlation between Sheed and Zach? Was Rasheed feeding him the ball, was Zach benefiting from open jams thanks to Rasheed? No! The vast majority of his shots he had to work and create himself.

He's only 22, and STILL putting up better numbers than rasheed EVER did.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> What is the correlation between Sheed and Zach?


That's easy. The other team is concerned with containing Sheed. That opens up easier opportunities for Zach.

When Sheed isn't there to help, we've seen how massively more difficult it is for Zach to produce.

Should be rather obvious...

Dan


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Nathan..
that just isn't correct about Zach.

Not having Sheed there had Z E R O to do with his poor play tonight.

He looked sweaty,slow and heavy???

They didn't even bother to double team any Blazer tonight.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> That's easy. The other team is concerned with containing Sheed. That opens up easier opportunities for Zach.
> 
> ...


I've seen Zach shut down 1 on 1 in these recent games. It's not that he's getting double teamed, he's just tenative when he gets the ball down low and he's shooting little jump shots. Besides, even when Rasheed was with us, the other teams always doubled Zach Randolph...so how was Rasheed's presense helping? Nobody feared Rasheed, he was a 6-11 shooting guard that coasted around and jacked up jump shots. 

I swear, you guys are acting like Zach and Rasheed had some sort of great inside-outside chemistry going on, but that's far from the case. Zach's not even good at passing the ball out of the double team. He's just lost his aggression down low.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Is Zach REALLY our future?*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Let's not forget that when Randolph replaced Wallace in the lineup last season, during Wallace's suspension, Randolph had a bunch of great games, including a 30+ point / 20+ rebound night.
> 
> No Wallace to prop him up then.


In the summer I made a post documenting the difference in Randolph’s performance in games alongside Rasheed and games in place of Rasheed (last season). The numbers were heavily in favor of Randolph with Wallace.

Some shrugged this off (most notably Dan) but this season the trend has mysteriously continued.

The game in which Randolph recorded 30 points and 20 rebounds last season was alongside Rasheed (who contributed 19 points himself).

The Game...

During the 7 game suspension Randolph had a couple of good games (a few in single digits) and his overall numbers were not that impressive (though encouraging at the time). He had one double double and one game I would call _very good_ (recording 20 points and 8 rebounds).

Game 1
Game 2
Game 3
Game 4
Game 5
Game 6
Game 7

----

I do hope that he develops as many hope him to (I am just not sold as of yet).


----------



## KIDBLAZE (Jul 8, 2003)

*Re: Re: Is Zach REALLY our future?*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that when Randolph replaced Wallace in the lineup last season, during Wallace's suspension, Randolph had a bunch of great games, including a 30+ point / 20+ rebound night.
> ...


Actually, Rasheed playing when Zach had that 30/20 game.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

i'm going to do an about-face. I thought before this game that Zach was the guy to hold onto and SAR was the one to trade, but I've completely changed my mind. 

we need to find a buyer for Zach ASAP, and let SAR become our PF. if we can find that deal for Pierce, Francis or Ray Allen for Randolph, we have to snatch it up now. 

relying on the guard play of Derek Anderson and Damon to win our games when teams pack it in on SAR, Zach and Ratliff is just not going to cut it.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> But as for tradiing franchise players, anyone look at Paul Pierce's line tonight?  32 minutes, 1-6, 4 points, 1 assist, 6 turnovers. Yikes. I may have to rethink my support of acquiring him and willingness to overlook the shooting slump...
> 
> Dan


Oh my Dan.. we need to pull our threads for getting him.. ouchie

well.... everyone has a bad day right? 

but he plays D


we better stick with the Ray Allen offers


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think Zach is almost certainly our future... but I'm not sure that our best path includes having both Zach AND SAR.

Considering how impressive Miles has been, we might be better off with a Miles + SAR + (whatever Zach can bring in trade) than we currently are, or than we would be with Miles + ZR + (whatever SAR can bring in trade).

Zach was terrible tonight, but it's *way* too early to give up on him for the long haul.

Ed O.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't understand you guys, our 22 year old PF averaging over 20 and 10 has a bad game and you want to trade him away?

Yet you are smarting over a cancerous jerk who didn't care about winning or the fans? Rasheed Wallace took you all on a ride, he had the talent but never delievered, because he never cared.


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

I was tempted to think the same thing about keeping SAR and bailing on Zack.

But look at the big picture rather than a couple bad games. He's a kid. Somehow he went from languishing on the bench to being considered an all-star snubee in a few months. Some of his recent problems might be contributed to teams figuring out how to counter his unorthodox style. If he's shown he can make such drastic improvements in the past, what's to say he won't get over a few frustrating games and make more improvements? 

I guess my greatest fear is we'll trade him for some "piece of the puzzle" that will give us a chance to win a few more games now, and then we get stuck watching another bum like DD and crying when Zack flourishes like Jermaine did.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> I don't understand you guys, our 22 year old PF averaging over 20 and 10 has a bad game and you want to trade him away?


Yega,

I think the desire to trade Randolph deals with an abundance of talent at the SF/PF spot.

Reef and Randolph play the same spot. The difference is that Reef brings a lot more to the table at this point in his career. 

So, one must make a decision - do you want a player who has it all, but hasn't proven he can win, but you know will get 20/10 and play solid defense or do you want a guy who has a bit of an attitude, has had one year of 20/10 and looks like he will continue that trend but doesn't have other talents. 

I don't think anyone thinks Randolph is a talentless hack ... the problem lies solely with the Blazers having 2 EXTREMELY gifted PFs.

Play.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I also think it is WAY too early to pull the plug on Zach's days as a Blazer. Let's see how\if he and the team (hello Cheeks? Anyone home?) adjust over the next few weeks before we decide that a 22yr old should be traded. 

That being said I think that our best lineup may be w\o Zach starting. The lineup of Ratliff (he was impressive), Rahim (also impressive) and Miles (impressive as well) worked very well for their FIRST time together IMO. Our backcourt let us down big time tonight, both DA and Damon had TERRIBLE turnovers, and niether could hit an outside shot to save their lives. DA at least hit a couple late, too late, but he bricked many.

I think Zach, if his ego could handle it, could thrive being the 6th man. Coming in against 2nd teamers, being able to play the post, w\o Rahim there most of the time. Zach is FIVE years younger than Rahim, but boy is Rahim a much more complete player in the post than Zach is now. Can Zach develop into that type of player? That is the big question.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> I think Zach, if his ego could handle it, could thrive being the 6th man. Coming in against 2nd teamers, being able to play the post, w\o Rahim there most of the time. Zach is FIVE years younger than Rahim, but boy is Rahim a much more complete player in the post than Zach is now. Can Zach develop into that type of player? That is the big question.


The problem is that if you put Zach on the bench, his stock goes down as does his contract $$.

Zach would have a fit, as would I.

I think it might benefit the team, but I don't know if it would work.

I am not pulling the plug on a 22 yo. I am just saying you have a guy right now that DOES do it all. 

The team is missing an outside threat. 

Why not make a move that will get us the outside threat while keeping the inside presence. 

I certainly am not complaining about the overabundance of talent, that is for sure.

Play.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I woudl like to see the anticipated lineup more

SF SAR
PF Zach
C Ratliff

much more..

Rahim seems to be a total team player. His passing is not too bad either. I was surpirsed, he does little things to help. He might have had several more assists if Zach had not dropped the ball.. (But he had a bad game, and I will leave it at that.. it happens)


If only we could get a shooter and a PG...


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Some shrugged this off (most notably Dan)


Eh? I don't remember that...

Dan


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Eh? I don't remember that...
> 
> Dan


It was maybe my 3-5th post on this site.

I tabulated Randolph’s numbers with Rasheed in the lineup and without.

You responded something to the effect of those numbers being misleading due to Randolph’s productive games coinciding with his increased production later in the season (the games without Wallace coming while he just began coming into his own, and the majority with coming late season and in the playoffs).

I thought that were you, but I could be mistaken. If so I apologize for the misunderstanding.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I have absolutely no recollection of that discussion, so I can't say whether or not I said such a thing.

The context you provided (late season improvements) does make a tad bit of sense and sounds like something I may have said...

Dan


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> I don't understand you guys, our 22 year old PF averaging over 20 and 10 has a bad game and you want to trade him away?


I was thinking the exact same thing.......:no:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Let's just say I am glad that nobody here is responsible for running a Patriot missile battery. There seems to be a problem with recognizing appropriate targets.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

No kidding. 

Quick, dump the guy that's averaging 20/10 because he _might_ not get better! Lord knows how many players of that calibre have come through Portland lately. 

You are all a bunch of Bob Whitsitts. So quick for trade. The grass is always greener. Forget giving the team a chance to mesh. Pull the trigger! 

Blazer fans used to rally behind guys like Zach. Guys who worked hard every night. Defied limitations. Now it's, "dump him while he's young and his stock is high!" 

Where's the love?


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yeah seriously, give these guys till the end of the season... see if they can figure out how to play as a team. We just traded our best player and a backup for two potential starters - that's gonna change your team...

One thing that I was very encouraged about is the fact that Darius is making a hell of an argument for staying in the starting lineup. Whether he will or should is questionable, but the fact that he's fighting hard, playing well, and not giving up tells me that he may well be turning a corner with this team. I think we'd be foolish not to keep the guy after this season...

How about that Qyntel Woods?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> No kidding.
> 
> Quick, dump the guy that's averaging 20/10 because he _might_ not get better! Lord knows how many players of that calibre have come through Portland lately.


Big Dog Glenn Robinson averaged 20/10, but is a plug because he can't play defense, dribble, pass or walk and chew gum. He reminds me of Randolph. Randolph can't pass, dribble or defend -- but he puts up gaudy offensive stats.



> You are all a bunch of Bob Whitsitts. So quick for trade. The grass is always greener. Forget giving the team a chance to mesh. Pull the trigger!


The issue is that Reef is a far superior player in the post and at the perimeter. The hole in the team lies in the lack of a SG. Not in the abundance of strength at PF. Even without Reef, the lineup is stacked at that position.



> Blazer fans used to rally behind guys like Zach. Guys who worked hard every night. Defied limitations. Now it's, "dump him while he's young and his stock is high!"


Zach works hard on *ONE* end and absolutely lackluster on the other. That isn't working hard every night. 
Plus he has an attitude problem and is selfish.

Play.

Where's the love? *ONE*


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Blazer Ringbearer</b>!
> 
> 
> One thing that I was very encouraged about is the fact that Darius is making a hell of an argument for staying in the starting lineup.


The issue is - who would he start over?

It would have to be over Reef or Randolph or Theo. Personally, I don't know if he brings more to either end compared to these other guys.

This is why I say we have a HUGE logjam of talent. 



Play.


----------



## amd pwr (Jun 24, 2003)

portland should just trade him now while he is still tradeable. they already have shareef and i dont see randolf and him playing well together. remember, portland wants a new image and zach was part of the bad image portland had.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

trade zach and you'll regret it. but that's up to your management. i just hope they have an established lineup sometime soon and just keep it because all this trading will result in zero chemistry, but it seems like a lot of blazer fans are impossible to satisfy, and are constantly wanting trades, but as long as players are being shifted in and out like slaves, this team will never be comfortable. so i say find a 2-guard and a PG, and let the team play for 3 years w/o trading anybody. there will be ups and downs, but it will be for the best in the end. to me it just seems that perfection is expected night in and night out. if you want a model, model after the pacers. if one person has a bad game there are no fingers being pointed. some day it is jermaines night, some day it is ronnie's night, some day it's reggie's night, and some day it is al's night, and they have pass first point guards. they all have their bad nights, but there is never any trade talk. i see zach as more consistant than any of the pacers, and i see him as in the stage where he'll make vast improvements the next 3 summers. but if you guys want to trade him, do it. but don't cry when he proves to be a lot more valuable than the guys you get back for him and shareef. if you want a more polished PF right now this year, shareef might be the way to go. but what do you see next year? or the year after? honestly, i like how zachs first few years as a blazer have gone, but if they is just going to be trading back and forth after this year, then they won't win, and i'd rather see zach on a patient team that can grow together.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ZBoFanatic</b>!
> trade zach and you'll regret it. but that's up to your management. i just hope they have an established lineup sometime soon and just keep it because all this trading will result in zero chemistry, but it seems like a lot of blazer fans are impossible to satisfy, and are constantly wanting trades, but as long as players are being shifted in and out like slaves, this team will never be comfortable. so i say find a 2-guard and a PG, and let the team play for 3 years w/o trading anybody. there will be ups and downs, but it will be for the best in the end. to me it just seems that perfection is expected night in and night out. if you want a model, model after the pacers. if one person has a bad game there are no fingers being pointed. some day it is jermaines night, some day it is ronnie's night, some day it's reggie's night, and some day it is al's night, and they have pass first point guards. they all have their bad nights, but there is never any trade talk. i see zach as more consistant than any of the pacers, and i see him as in the stage where he'll make vast improvements the next 3 summers. but if you guys want to trade him, do it. but don't cry when he proves to be a lot more valuable than the guys you get back for him and shareef. if you want a more polished PF right now this year, shareef might be the way to go. but what do you see next year? or the year after? honestly, i like how zachs first few years as a blazer have gone, but if they is just going to be trading back and forth after this year, then they won't win, and i'd rather see zach on a patient team that can grow together.


Zach's upside is limited by his own physical talents and his desire.

He has the heart of a child. Whining and complaining about minutes after ONE GAME! ONE GAME! That is NOT the kind of player you build around. Could you imagine O'Neal comlpaining if he lost 5-10 minutes a night to an equally talented player? As long as the player contributes and plays well, I am sure it would be fine.

He is overweight and lazy. Working in the offseason isn't impressive to me. It should be expected. Reef works the entire offseason and usually tries to get the guys on the team together to work. 

Randolph doesn't possess the attributes that make GREAT players. I just don't see how he can improve. His defense is NONE existant, so even if next year it is 200% better, it still doesn't exist. He can't dribble, which means he can't create. He can't pass, which means he can't create for others. 

He can muscle in for rebounds and has a nice touch around the rim. That, in and of itself, is NOT impressive.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> You are all a bunch of Bob Whitsitts. So quick for trade. The grass is always greener. Forget giving the team a chance to mesh. Pull the trigger!


Uh-huh. How do you justify the SAR trade, then? What happened to giving the team time to mesh after acquiring Miles (which was happening quite nicely)? Why so quick to pull the trigger again?

Whatever.

Dan


----------



## Clank (Feb 11, 2004)

I agree we shouldn't be so jumpy to trade away future talent. However, you can justify that trade because:

1 Wallace was not going to stay.
2 If we kept him we might get to the first round of the playoffs, but no farther.
3 We got two starters who fit the PR goal.

So since we're not contenders this year, we were looking at starting next season with SAR and Theo, or nothing. 

That's not too hard a decision to make.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> Zach's upside is limited by his own physical talents and his desire.
> ...


that can be said about anyone. his desire is out the roof.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> He has the heart of a child. Whining and complaining about minutes after ONE GAME! ONE GAME! That is NOT the kind of player you build around. Could you imagine O'Neal comlpaining if he lost 5-10 minutes a night to an equally talented player? As long as the player contributes and plays well, I am sure it would be fine.


he is a child, he's 22. zach is more talented than shareef.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> He is overweight and lazy. Working in the offseason isn't impressive to me. It should be expected. Reef works the entire offseason and usually tries to get the guys on the team together to work.


what makes you think that zach is lazy? what makes you think reef tries to get the guys on the team together to work? all the teams he's "led" have been the worst in the league.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> Randolph doesn't possess the attributes that make GREAT players. I just don't see how he can improve. His defense is NONE existant, so even if next year it is 200% better, it still doesn't exist. He can't dribble, which means he can't create. He can't pass, which means he can't create for others.


open your eyes, he can improve. if you really think he won't improve, you're extremely ignorant. he's 22, in his first year of playing significant minutes. also it's NONEXISTANT not none existant.



> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> He can muscle in for rebounds and has a nice touch around the rim. That, in and of itself, is NOT impressive.


what do you expect out of a powerforward? i think his scoring and rebound ability is pretty impressive at his age if you ask me, especially considering that it ranks among the best ALL TIME for 22 year olds.

but go ahead and trade him, just don't cry when you eat crow


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Actually, I'm beginning to think that Zach is one of those players who comes in and puts up great numbers right away, but never really improves...kind of like Elton Brand or Lamar Odom.

Hey, he might also be a player who starts off strong then his career takes a nose dive. Derrick Coleman, Vin Baker, Larry Johnson, they all averaged 20 and 10 within the first two years of their careers! He seems to share similar traits to those guys.

Zach is very lacking in many areas of his game except scoring and rebounding. He turns the ball over a bunch! It seems that Zach is going to be quibbling about minutes with Rahim at PF, and Miles is coming on as a great new SF...there is a bit of a problem here. 

If at this point, we could get Paul Pierce for Zach, I'd pull the trigger! But not for an older star like Ray Allen.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

paul pierce for zach would be a good trade if you want to have better records the next couple of years, but i really think that keeping the core of 22 year olds, who are all friends anyway, together, and finding a set of guards to go along w/ them too, would be the best bet. but maybe that's just me.


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

I would've thought the character smears would have fallen back on Damon after the trade, but I was wrong. ZR is overweight, whiny, selfish, and lazy? I really feel like I must not be from this planet sometimes.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> Actually, I'm beginning to think that Zach is one of those players who comes in and puts up great numbers right away, but never really improves...kind of like Elton Brand or Lamar Odom.


EB or Odom? Come on. Those guys have improved each year. I have Odom in Fantasy league. He is amazing. He improved his rebounding tremendously from last year. I would take Odom any day. He hated being a Clipper (and who can blame him for that).

Elton , behind Duncan and KG the most consistent player in the league. Zach can carry either one's gym bag. 






We as fans see things through purple glasses. Zach is a good player but not a corner stone for a franchise. Zach will be a good player in the NBA and may average 20/10 for the next 10 yrs. That's great but will he improve the other parts of his game or his physic? I doubt it. He will not grow so he be 6'8 or so. He doesn’t block shots. He loses his man constantly on D.





> Zach is very lacking in many areas of his game except scoring and rebounding. He turns the ball over a bunch! It seems that Zach is going to be quibbling about minutes with Rahim at PF, and Miles is coming on as a great new SF...there is a bit of a problem here.


I agree, not for the argument of who is better SAR or Zach. I don't see Zach improving that much to warrant the "potential" label. He might score 2 more points/game but I doubt he can keep up his rebound #'s with Theo, SAR and Miles playing. No wonder he is grumbling. This is contract year for him. He just lost 10’s of millions of $. He might have gotten the max with the old team. Now I can't see more than 60 or so million for 7yrs. We are talking 20 or so million reason why he is unhappy. So if you get a Paul Pierce you have to do it, if you can't get that caliber you wait until '05 and try to sign Ray Allen without giving up a guy like him.

That buys a lots of beer in Indiana :grinning: .


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

I was at the Portland/Denver game to welcome the new players Rahim, Ratliff and Dickau. The new guys played great, but I can't help feeling that Rahim is not well suited to play the 3. Ideally, I would start Darius at the 3, the kid has been playing well and he deserves it. 

What it comes down to is who starts at the 4. Quite frankly, I think Rahim is head and shoulders better than Zach is right now. He's just a smarter and more savvy player, and he makes his teammates better, something Zach does not do. Zach is continiously facing up and taking jump shots now, and I feel its for two reasons: he's afraid of the double team, or afraid of getting blocked. 

Defensively we're not a good team, no thanks to DA and Damon. Playing Rahim at the 3, and Zach at the 4 wouldn't help matters. Rahim just isn't quick enough to guard any 3's and Zach just can't guard anyone.  Rahim was quoted as saying he'd do whatever the team wants him to do "I'll play at the 3, at the 4, I'll start or I'll come off the bench. Whatever the coaches want me to do." I can't help but feel Zach is a little selfish, in that he complained about the lack of shots after only one game. Now that we have a better power forward in Rahim over Zach, why not bring Zach off the bench and develop him more slowly.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> I would've thought the character smears would have fallen back on Damon after the trade, but I was wrong. ZR is overweight, whiny, selfish, and lazy? I really feel like I must not be from this planet sometimes.


I know exactly how you feel. 2 weeks ago, comments like those would have been laughed off the board. Zach has a bad game, makes a few frustrated comments, and people freak out.

I'm so disgusted, I almost wish they would trade Zach.....just to sit here and :rofl: 


I just wish some of these guys were in my SOM league.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Hi, I'm an outsider here and I would like to share my thoughts about Zach Randolph.

I agree with some of your assesment that Zach Randolph is a 20/10 guy and still very young. And I also agree that even though he put up that kind of number, he might not improve much. But, I don't think that's bad if you can surround him with players that can compliment his game.

I think his situation is similar to Bulls' Eddy Curry (Curry is not at Zach's level yet though). The Bulls management knows that Curry will eventually become a star in this league. But, it looks like that he will never become more than just an average defender(Curry's rebounding is poor and his shot blocking ability is not that good considering his size). That's why Krause drafted Tyson Chandler to compliment Curry's game. Chandler compliment Curry with his rebounding and shot-blocking ability. And also Curry and Chandler will not clog up the post when they play together. Chandler operates more freely, while Curry most of the times operates in the low post. This way, the Bulls can still keep Curry and cover his weakness.

What I am trying to say is you have two scenarios to build this team. Either trade Zach and keep Reef.. or Keep Zach but acquire somebody that compliment his game. Build the team around him. 

It's true that currently Reef is the better player. But, Zach is still young. Even though he is not going be more than just an average defender, his 20/10 is a keeper. If he can do that consistently every night for a long time. All you guys need is a Center who can flat out defend the post, which you have in Ratliff, to cover Zach's weakness. And yes, a shooter. Teach Zach how to pass out of double team, a skill which Curry is yet to develop. And now, I think you will still have a good team despite Zach's limitatiton. This is if you guys decide to stick with Zach.

About who is a better keeper, Zach or Reef? IMO, both are similar in terms of they are not leader type player. they are better as number 2 players. They are what Juwan Howard is suppose to be to T-Mac. A complimentary player. 

I really like Reef though. But, this is just Zach's first year of becoming an All-Star calibre player. Who knows... he might still be able to improve his game. he's still young.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Once upon a time, Vin Baker put up 21 and 11. He ALSO put up a steal and a block a game to go with it. Where is he now?

You can't assume that a player will get better as he gets older.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

More: Juwan Howard put up 22 ppg when he was 22 years old. Whatever happened to him?

He and McGrady are tearing up the league, right?


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

but zach has gotten better every year, what makes you think that he will stop. vin baker is a raging alcoholic, and juwan howard is overly egotistical just like everyone else from the fab 5


----------



## BlazersRebuilder (Feb 14, 2004)

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the emotional effect of the trade is having on Zach. I think Zach liked Rasheed both on and off the court. When the trade rumours were swirling big it wasn't just Rasheed that was affected. It wasn't until the rumours went really quiet that both Rasheed and Zach started playing well again. Emotionally I'm not sure Zach at 22 is ready to be labeled as the franchise by the management. He lost a friend and good teammate. Then the Blazers bring in another player (Rahim) that is much more of a threat to Randolph that Rasheed (more consistent, "good" character person, and less versatile to play other positions that Sheed). Until Randolph realizes he and Rahim can work together (as opposed to being threatened and not gelling) to make the team better he is going to struggle. He has to grow up really quick and become a leader now that makes others better (not just himself) or I fear he will be the next to go. His value is too high to not act on a trade if the Blazers feel he is not "the Franchise" especially if they can put together a package that could get back a Star quality SG (McGrady, Pierce, Carter) or PG (Francis). Of these I would choose to upgrade SG (the last thing we need is Damon moping on the bench right now). In summary I think the biggest reason Zach is struggling right now is his emotional state. How he handles his emotions the next few games may determine his Blazers future.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ZBoFanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> that can be said about anyone. his desire is out the roof.


But, I also said his physical frame detract from his ability to improve.



> he is a child, he's 22. zach is more talented than shareef.


In what respect? 

When he has consistantly put these numbers up over double teams and triple teams, then I will agree. 

He has a wider body, so it helps him get more rebounds. He also has a nice knack for getting them on the offensive end, no doubt.

But, I would hardly say he is MORE talented than Reef. Maybe some day, but that day is NOT today or any time in the next four years. By the end of four years, Zach is as old as Shareef.

Also, 22 years old is a young MAN. Old enough to know what being a professional is. 



> what makes you think that zach is lazy? what makes you think reef tries to get the guys on the team together to work? all the teams he's "led" have been the worst in the league.


I think Zach is lazy for a couple reasons, but I will admit, he has worked on BASKETBALL scoring in the offseason. 

He is lazy on the defensive end and he is lazy in regards to his physical frame. There is no reason to be in the shape he is in. He is a professional athlete. Given that he is as talented as he is, it only makes one realize how much better he would be if he got in better shape.

How do I know Reef gets others on the team together to work - because I know Reef and I attended Wheeler. I've gone to some of the offseason practices organized by Reef. 

I agree, Reef has not had much on court success in winning. He can do his part, and try to inspire others.... but in the end, they have to draw on themselves. 

Admittedly, Reef is NOT an energetic/electric/energy guy. He doesn't jump up and down when someone hits a three. He doesn't scream when he dunks. He doesn't inspire people during a game. He is VERY business class about it - ala' Tim Duncan. 





> open your eyes, he can improve. if you really think he won't improve, you're extremely ignorant. he's 22, in his first year of playing significant minutes. also it's NONEXISTANT not none existant.


First, piss off with the spelling corrections. The last thing I need is someone explaining the english language to me - especially in a basketball forum, where I am trying to type as fast as possible and paying precious little attention to grammer. I think I do quite well. Furthermore, it is quite childish in a debate to resort to spelling corrections. I knew it was nonexistant, I was typing quickly. 

When you use perfect punctuation and spelling and grammer in all your posts, then throw stones. 

As for Zach -- OF COURSE he can improve. I don't doubt it. The question is - how much and how long? 

I think he is limited and has very little room to grow. You disagree. There is the bone of contention. 




> what do you expect out of a powerforward? i think his scoring and rebound ability is pretty impressive at his age if you ask me, especially considering that it ranks among the best ALL TIME for 22 year olds.


I don't expect anything more from a POWER FORWARD ... but I expect a lot more out of an ELITE POWER FORWARD, which seems to be the label you want Zach to hold. 

An elite PF, I would expect to have a bit of range and an ability to handle the ball and a desire to set up his teammates. I would expect them to play defense or at least exert a sweat trying to. 

I agree that Zach is impressive around the rim, and he is only 22 to boot. There is no one denying his obvious flair down low. What you have are people questioning whether he can take it out and extend his game much more.

Zach isn't quite Shaq in the post, and teams will eventually shut him down with zones or doubles. At least if he doesn't extend his game.



> but go ahead and trade him, just don't cry when you eat crow


I wouldn't eat crow or cry. Especially if we got in return a SG of equal value (or even just a bit less). 

I would be happy with:

Jalen Rose
Vince Carter
Paul Pierce
Tracy McGrady
Steve Francis
Ray Allen

That realm of player. 

Someone who has proven they can put it in for the team, and still has some tread left. 

I wouldn't trade him for the sake of trading him. That is stupid. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>FeloniusThunk</b>!
> I would've thought the character smears would have fallen back on Damon after the trade, but I was wrong. ZR is overweight, whiny, selfish, and lazy? I really feel like I must not be from this planet sometimes.


Felonius,

I am pretty new here, but I would hazard the guess that most people would trade Damon and aren't a fan of Damon --- but Zach has FAR more trade value.

Also, Damon is not in a position of being logjammed.

Now, I'd bet if you had just traded wallace for Kidd (or any top 7 PG) we'd be seeing posts about shipping out Damon. 

So, I think Damon is getting the benefit of a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BlazersRebuilder</b>!
> One thing I haven't seen anyone mention yet is the emotional effect of the trade is having on Zach. I think Zach liked Rasheed both on and off the court. When the trade rumours were swirling big it wasn't just Rasheed that was affected. It wasn't until the rumours went really quiet that both Rasheed and Zach started playing well again. Emotionally I'm not sure Zach at 22 is ready to be labeled as the franchise by the management. He lost a friend and good teammate. Then the Blazers bring in another player (Rahim) that is much more of a threat to Randolph that Rasheed (more consistent, "good" character person, and less versatile to play other positions that Sheed). Until Randolph realizes he and Rahim can work together (as opposed to being threatened and not gelling) to make the team better he is going to struggle. He has to grow up really quick and become a leader now that makes others better (not just himself) or I fear he will be the next to go. His value is too high to not act on a trade if the Blazers feel he is not "the Franchise" especially if they can put together a package that could get back a Star quality SG (McGrady, Pierce, Carter) or PG (Francis). Of these I would choose to upgrade SG (the last thing we need is Damon moping on the bench right now). In summary I think the biggest reason Zach is struggling right now is his emotional state. How he handles his emotions the next few games may determine his Blazers future.


I think this is quite the well thought out post and I agree with it whole-heartedly.

If Randolph can become a man and realize that the team just got loads better, then we have something. If he realizes, now is the moment for me to seize and become part of this team and play my role to the best of my ability -- then he needs to leave.

If I were management and heard those comments, he would have had a quick call in which I iterated that the media is NOT the place for that discussion and if it happened again -- I'd Keyshaun his fat-rear.

Play.


----------



## nikebasketball (Jan 28, 2004)

*
Zach is the core young talent of the Blazers since Sheed and Bonzi got traded.

I feel that Zach should be the major focus.

I understand that bringing in SAR and Ratliff are supposed to make the Blazers a contender immediately, but we all know that will take some practices and playing some games together to learn one another.

The Blazers have gone through alot of changes this season and it has to be very difficult to adjust constantly to the changing roster and wondering who is gonna be playing with you week to week with all the Blazers trade rumors that have been swirling around.

Sure he's got things to work on such as his defense, temper etc. but this all comes with experience as we all know.

I'm sure that next year and many years after that Zach will be in the All Star game as long as he keeps putting up a double double average, it can't be ignored for long.

Everyone needs to give Zach his credit where his credit is due after all he is 1 of only 4 players in the entire league that is averaging 20pts. 10 rebs.
*


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>nikebasketball</b>!
> *
> Zach is the core young talent of the Blazers since Sheed and Bonzi got traded.
> 
> ...


Hehe.

Your signature almost makes you as obviously biased in your opinion of Zach Randolph as I am in my opinion on Shareef. 

Seriously though, I think Zach is a talent. 

But, I just don't see him as the kind of guy you build around. He doesn't have enough versatility and he isn't dominating enough in what he does to not develop the rest.

Like Shaq -- he is a big version of Zach Randolph. The difference is that Shaq is too tall to double properly and too strong to keep out of the lane and has enough touch around the rim to be dangerous. He is too dominating to be stopped. He can do what he does all night long because he is a dominant force.

Zach, I don't believe, can. Which means he will have to learn to dribble and pass. 

Then to be an elite cornerstone, he will have to learn to pull his game outside a little ways. 

That is a LOT of learning. Not to mention during this, he still has to exert himself on defense.

Play.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

the trade was idiotic. thats all i have to say about that:no:


----------



## Zach (May 11, 2003)

I am the future. I think he is though.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Yes and yes!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> Yes and yes!


To what?

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> the trade was idiotic. thats all i have to say about that:no:


On which part?

The fact that Reef and Randolph are going to have a hard time together?

It still netted the team a solid post defender in Theo.

I don't think it was a strike out.

Play.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

first...our Forum Zach is the man as well as the Blazers Zach1


Secondly, a good citizen doesn't free up the post. Sheed however much people critisized him complimented Zach becase he freed up the post...this won't happen now. The blazers will now have 2 fish out of water. Theo...you can't rely on him one bit.

If that is the best they can do fine...but the should have looked for a need more.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> But, I also said his physical frame detract from his ability to improve.
> ...


First off, the offseason improvement will undoubtedly be seen in handling the double and triple teams. His turnovers should decrease significantly by learning the ropes of passing out of a double.

It is documented that he lifts weights every game day, which is supposedly a lot more than most do during the season and also has hired a personal trainer, so it is not like he is only working on basketball as you seem to be implying.

I'm thinking he'll be at Shareefs level in the next year. I mean his improvement has been extremely rapid every summer, why would it stop now? You don't just have the 2nd highest scoring increase in NBA history for no reason.

How was I supposed to know you meant nonexistant? Bad grammar is an easy way to overlook a poster.

Knowing Zach, he has a desire to improve all the time. I'm not to worried about him extending his range, because he has a soft touch, and his range is already decent. The main concerns of course are defense and handling defenses that are focused on him. He'll never be an elite defender, but it'll get better every year. I think his probs w/ the doubles and triples will be solved by fall. Remember, this is his first year starting.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ZBoFanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> First off, the offseason improvement will undoubtedly be seen in handling the double and triple teams. His turnovers should decrease significantly by learning the ropes of passing out of a double.


One would hope, but is not guaranteed. He will ALWAYS be 6'9", which means he will ALWAYS be hampered by a strong double because he can't see over it. Further, he isn't a stellar dribbler, which means he can't avoid it.



> It is documented that he lifts weights every game day, which is supposedly a lot more than most do during the season and also has hired a personal trainer, so it is not like he is only working on basketball as you seem to be implying.


Lifting weights is not what he needs. He needs to improve his frame. He has to lose the layer of fat and become leaner. This would increase his speed and help his athletisicm. 



> I'm thinking he'll be at Shareefs level in the next year. I mean his improvement has been extremely rapid every summer, why would it stop now? You don't just have the 2nd highest scoring increase in NBA history for no reason.


He didn't have the 2nd highest increase for no reason. The reason is quite simple, he played 8 minutes a game compared to 39 now. He obviously had talent, I don't think it blossomed over one season.

As for being on Reef's level - that is a tough call. Reef is among the top 5-7 PFs in the league. (I would put him in the top 5, and top 3 offensively. Scoring 20 PPG on 14 shots is impressive)

For Zach to be on Reef's level he'd need to learn to dribble, pass, see the floor better, become less selfish, play a modicrum of defense, and be able to create his own shot while facing the basket or with his back to it. I don't see him learning all that in the offseason.

If Zach improves to Reef's level WITH the ball, then he will be a force. I have just never seen ANYONE with Zach's frame be able to handle the ball like Reef. 




> How was I supposed to know you meant nonexistant? Bad grammar is an easy way to overlook a poster.


Agreed, but I don't think the rest of my post indicated ignorance of the english language. Heck, we could sit here and dissect each other's posts for days and never talk about anything else. Let's leave that to people in a different forum. 

Now, if I had said:

U now i c randolph az a kid wit much game dat he can improv.

Then I'd say blast me a new one and all the power to you!



> Knowing Zach, he has a desire to improve all the time. I'm not to worried about him extending his range, because he has a soft touch, and his range is already decent.


I haven't seen Zach really pull out any range with consistancy. Of course, I do love his fade away/turn around in the post. That is an impressive move and darn near undefendable. 



> The main concerns of course are defense and handling defenses that are focused on him. He'll never be an elite defender, but it'll get better every year. I think his probs w/ the doubles and triples will be solved by fall. Remember, this is his first year starting.


I disagree about handling the doubles and triples. He may be able to improve his passing a lot and increase his court vision a little. But, he will always be short and slower then other guys. Court vision is mainly an innate thing, but can be learned a little. So, he may be able to work on his composure, but the things that make a double team effective, I just don't see him able to work on.

Play.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> I disagree about handling the doubles and triples. He may be able to improve his passing a lot and increase his court vision a little. But, he will always be short and slower then other guys. Court vision is mainly an innate thing, but can be learned a little. So, he may be able to work on his composure, but the things that make a double team effective, I just don't see him able to work on.
> 
> Play.


Here I think you're wrong. (most everything else I agree completely with.)

When we start talking about handling doubles and triples, I at least, am not looking to turn him into Sabonis or Walton. He simply needs to recognize when he has the advantage or when the defense has the advantage. If the double comes quick enough, it's time to kick it back out. That's more decision making as opposed to court vision.

Now a pleasant next step to this would be to recognize where the double came from and try to kick it to the open guy. Even that though is more patience than court vision but does require some semblance of skill.

-----------------------

My actual thoughts on Zach....

To put an 'Untradable' label on Zach is ludicrous. I know he's 22 and I hope that he continues to improve but if we can get the right trade for him, I'd love to ship him out. There are plenty of players in the league who would make the Blazers better now and for the next 5 to 7 years than Zach does.

Remember, just because someone is calling to trade Zach, it doesn't mean they're saying Zach's a bad player. I haven't read anything here to make me think that. It's actually quite the opposite. Because Zach's trade value is so high, and we have a duplication of talent (our two best players are 4s) it makes sense to move one of them to get either a very good 1 or 2.

It's more important to be good for the next 3 to 5 years than it is to worry about 7 to 10 years.

If we keep Zach, then fine. It will be fun to see how he continually improves and becomes a recognized star in the league. If we ship him, assuming Nash/Patterson make a good trade which I believe they will, it will be fun seeing how good the new team can be.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>trifecta</b>!
> When we start talking about handling doubles and triples, I at least, am not looking to turn him into Sabonis or Walton. He simply needs to recognize when he has the advantage or when the defense has the advantage. If the double comes quick enough, it's time to kick it back out. That's more decision making as opposed to court vision.


If that is all you want, then yes, I believe Randolph can improve to that level. 

Of course, having players that move and slash without the ball would also help Randolph. I've watched Reef get a bad title as someone who has troubles with doubles, but he had no one to pass to. He'd get caught and the offense sat still. 

That can't happen, unless you are Shaq or Duncan and tower over the defenders, standing still will allow a double to be the most effective. I haven't evaluated Portland enough to really make a call on that one.




> Now a pleasant next step to this would be to recognize where the double came from and try to kick it to the open guy. Even that though is more patience than court vision but does require some semblance of skill.


This is what I was talking about, and when I say court vision I am implying actual court vision along with an understanding of the court. So, should Randolph get doubled, he KNOWS that Miles is slashing to the hoop or DA is running around to his side on the perimeter. That type of thing.

It is patience, but also trust and knowledge. Trust, in that you have faith that the man will be where he should be. Knowledge in that you know whwere he should be. 





> Remember, just because someone is calling to trade Zach, it doesn't mean they're saying Zach's a bad player. I haven't read anything here to make me think that. It's actually quite the opposite. Because Zach's trade value is so high, and we have a duplication of talent (our two best players are 4s) it makes sense to move one of them to get either a very good 1 or 2.


Echoed. 

I wouldn't say trade Randolph unless I felt that he could bring something in return.

As a matter of fact, I think he can return MORE than Shareef due to his age and the whole potential to improve. 

So, in essence, I am saying he IS a stud. 


Thank you for finding the words that I have been searching for. I think I have been stepping on toes and hurting feelings around here. 

Play.


----------

