# Hoopsworld: Rumor Mill



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

> Portland Trail Blazers: The Blazers answered a ton of questions in the off-season, the only burning questions are what happens to Darius Miles and Zach Randolph? The odds that both remain in Portland beyond the trade deadline are slim… Both will get a chance to prove they are on board with what Nate McMillan is trying to do – but neither is in the big picture. Word is Darius is in great shape, and has a chip on his shoulder and has something to prove, and that can only help the Blazers on the court and Darius to get his value up to be moved. Zach Randolph on the other hand is likely going to be sold off to the highest bidder once LaMarcus Aldridge learns the game. The Blazers could have the Rookie Of The Year in Brandon Roy, the problem is he’s really a two guard, but both Brandon and the Blazers are going to try and make it work at the point guard spot so he can play with Martell Webster.


Hoopsworld


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Interesting thoughts, though I'm still inclined to believe Nate -- at least for now, the coaching staff has virtually no interest in Roy at PG. Given that both Webster and Roy can play both the 2 and the 3, _and_ that any decent team has good players coming from the bench, I see no reason to try shoehorning Roy into running the point.

Regardless, it's a good find, BF -- thanks for posting it.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

I've said from before the draft that Roy should be drafted as PG. His strong performance in the Summer League playing the point cemented my opinion. There's no logical argument to be made that Jack/Roy is better than Roy/Webster, none at all.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazed said:


> I've said from before the draft that Roy should be drafted as PG. His strong performance in the Summer League playing the point cemented my opinion. There's no logical argument to be made that Jack/Roy is better than Roy/Webster, none at all.


How 'bout the point that Roy has hardly played that position even in college? How 'bout the point that he _could_ play the point, Jordan and the Bulls were better off with him spending most of his time at SG and that, at 6'6", Roy seems more like a SG than a PG? And yes I know about Magic and Kidd but successful PGs who are that tall are _very_ rare.


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

To tell you the truth i tihnk that ZBO should stay, we need to keep someone who knows atleast half way what they are doing and not have our whole team be first and 2nd year players. By the looks of how hard Zach has been working in the offseason i think he will put together a very productive year.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Roy can play SG, Martell can play SF.

I love Roy as much as the next guy, but the only thing he proved in the Summer League was that he could dominate other rookies and NBA castoffs.


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

best case scenario:

-darius snaps out of it and brings excitement back to rip city
-zach heals up and plays like the year before last(i think he did good for coming off a serious injury this past year)
-roy starts


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

wastro said:


> Roy can play SG, Martell can play SF.
> 
> I love Roy as much as the next guy, but the only thing he proved in the Summer League was that he could dominate other rookies and NBA castoffs.


Which is more than Webster has proven.

I think Webster will be excellent...but he has not shown it yet. Roy played better in summer league than Webster...he should be the starting SG.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Fork said:


> Which is more than Webster has proven.
> 
> I think Webster will be excellent...but he has not shown it yet. Roy played better in summer league than Webster...he should be the starting SG.


You're basing our starting 2 on how he did in the summer league. 

IMO, Webster did better than Roy in the summer league. He did nothing but talk on defense, and just played all around a great game. Other than his last game which he shot horrible in, I saw a greatly improved Martell.

Miles days on this roster are limited, and it won't be much longer until Martell and Roy are starting at the 3/2.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> You're basing our starting 2 on how he did in the summer league.


I can't speak for Fork, but he could be basing it on summer league (where Roy was much better than Webster) and be entirely justified.

How else are we going to compare them?

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> You're basing our starting 2 on how he did in the summer league.


Brandon Roy should start because of how he played in college. Before summer league, he was the most polished player coming out.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

So because he went to college for 4 years he gets to start ahead of a player with NBA experience? He needs to earn the ability to start.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> So because he went to college for 4 years he gets to start ahead of a player with NBA experience? He needs to earn the ability to start.


How does any rookie EVER start ahead of another player, in your opinion?

You're totally grasping at straws here.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Ed O said:


> How does any rookie EVER start ahead of another player, in your opinion?
> 
> You're totally grasping at straws here.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm big on rookies starting ahead of players who are on their way out of town, but when the player is a big part of the team's future, as Webster is, I'd rather let the rookie come off the bench until the position opens up. Which it will when Darius is traded.

Don't get me wrong, I like Roy, but I'd rather start Martell ahead of him as he is looking like he could put up double digit scoring at the age of 19, and that is pretty rare in the NBA. My ideal lineup has Martell at the 3 and Roy at the 2, but that just isn't going to happen until either Darius ****s up or is traded.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> I'm big on rookies starting ahead of players who are on their way out of town, but when the player is a big part of the team's future, as Webster is, I'd rather let the rookie come off the bench until the position opens up.


Hm. I guess I've simply seen too many NBA seasons to think that I can tell when a player is "on his way out of town" with much certainty.

I think it's almost always smarter and safer to have the better player start, irrespective of age or experience.



> Don't get me wrong, I like Roy, but I'd rather start Martell ahead of him as he is looking like he could put up double digit scoring at the age of 19, and that is pretty rare in the NBA.


Webster's looking pretty good as a prospect and his youth is a great thing (although he'll be 20 for the majority of this upcoming season), but it doesn't make much sense to me to hand him a starting position just because he MIGHT have a good second season.

Ed O.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

From what I've seen so far it looks more like Roy is ready to be a starting SG. Webster has a great touch, but he makes mistakes and still has a more one dimensional game then Roy. I also highly doubt Roy will be an effective PG as a rookie, but maybe he can learn to play the position just like Pippen became a very good PG (or PointForward) after a few years in the league. 

Webster is still very young and very inexperienced. It would not be a bad situation at all for him to come off the bench next year.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I like the idea of just starting the best players. They'll have both training camp and the handful of preseason games to sort it out. 

The only exception I can think of that might have me inclined to bring one or more of the best five players off the bench would be one of balance, either of basic positions or skill sets. For example, it seems possible to me that the best five on the team currently are: Randolph, Magloire, Pryzbilla, Miles, and LaFrentz -- that strikes me as being a disasterous starting five. 

Somewhat more seriously, I could see considering starting both Pryzbilla and Magloire, (particularly if Zach's hurt, suspended, or otherwise unavailable), but might shy away because there's not a lot of offense there.... pick one to start with LaFrentz (or maaaaybe Aldridge), and bring the other off the bench in that case.

From that perspective, I could see _maybe_ going with Webster over Roy for a ranged attack, but I'm not convinced that Webster does even that better than Roy and I _am_ fairly convinced that Roy does most other things better than Webster... though I'll certainly invite Webster to prove me wrong during training camp and preseason. Really, I _do_ want the best guy starting and I just happen to think it's likely Roy.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Terry Porter played a lot of small forward in college. you can't assume a guy who plays one position on one level must play that position on the next. is Roy an NBA-quality pg? who knows. he ran the team better in Summer League than any point guard I can remember.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

this is what training camp is for isnt it? i dont care who starts where as long as it works on the court.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

BlayZa said:


> this is what training camp is for isnt it? i dont care who starts where as long as it works on the court.



:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: 

And training camp is only about a month away. 

Secondly, I see Portland putting its best 5 players on the floor one way or another. Without a good mixture of shooting and spacing, the offense will drag to a halt. If that means putting Jack, Roy and Webster at the 1, 2 and 3, it provides the shooting and spacing needed to let the inside guys do their stuff. It also provides for the defensive angle of being able to switch on screens, and provides a big back court to provide the size advantage in the back court that we have not had for years. Very few teams will be able to match up with a back court of that size. Disadvantage: Webster might have to guard some big 3's. But a majority of small forwards in the league are Websters size, and they deal with it.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I love this type of completely fabricated "rumor" stuff. When guys just make stuff up or rehash the same kind of crap they've heard from somewhere else. Very John Canzano type of bush league stuff.

We're all dumber for having read it.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Blazed said:


> I've said from before the draft that Roy should be drafted as PG. His strong performance in the Summer League playing the point cemented my opinion. There's no logical argument to be made that Jack/Roy is better than Roy/Webster, none at all.


How about the fact that Jack is more effective at the point and a better defender than Roy at the point?

Roy can defend the 2 better than Martell can, but Roy is more effective at driving to the hoop and creating than Martell.

If you play Roy at the 1 and Martell at 2, who plays the 3?. Martell is the best long range shooter on the team.

All three need to get starters' minutes in order for this team to be effective.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I think training camp will definitely shake things up a bit. I trust Nate. I think he has a pretty good grasp on who should play and who shouldn't. He's not afraid to play the guy who deserves the minutes.

And in regards to Roy's ability to play the point, Cleveland was in a similar situation with LeBron when he came out. He had all the tools to play the point, and IIRC they started out the season with him as their #1 man, but eventually they found that he was simply too good as a shooting guard to keep him as the point man.

I think the same will hold true for Roy. He has the tools to play the point. He showed that. That doesn't mean you make him into a point guard. 

It's also important to remember that a rookie season is already tough. As a top ten pick, and someone who is being billed as a candidate for R.O.Y., he will already have a lot of pressure on him. Having him play out of position could be very detrimental to his progression.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Nice post Nate.....and I agree 100%


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

mook said:


> Terry Porter played a lot of small forward in college. you can't assume a guy who plays one position on one level must play that position on the next. is Roy an NBA-quality pg? who knows. he ran the team better in Summer League than any point guard I can remember.


Actually Terry Porter played some center per his comments at one of the SL games. He had to become a PG in the NBA. It can be done. What Terry had was heart and a great work ethic. Also he was smart B-Ball wise.

gatorpops


----------

