# Monia starting at SF is an absolute JOKE.



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

Its bad enough the Suns announcers are making fun of his name but as I watch this guy I cringe. He has no idea whats going on...a very AVERAGE shot and is too small at the position.

Serioulsy either a trade must be made or we better hope miles is back soon. Why in the hell is outlaw not starting over Monia? Even Victor or Ruebn would be 100 times better.

Im beginning to lose faith in nate...this team is not progreesing at all. Infact they might have gotten worse if possible. onights performance is frightning.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mixum said:


> Its bad enough the Suns announcers are making fun of his name but as I watch this guy I cringe. He has no idea whats going on...a very AVERAGE shot and is too small at the position.
> 
> Serioulsy either a trade must be made or we better hope miles is back soon. Why in teh heel is oualw not starting over Monia? Even Victor or Ruebn would 100 times better.
> 
> ...


The trolling ways are back, huh mixim?


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

cmon man...im not trolling, im being honest.

Are you watching this game? monia doesnt even know hes in The US.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Honestly, who would have thought that Outlaw wouldn't see the floor through one half tonight? I'm not anywhere near saying I'm losing faith in Nate, but I wonder what's up with this. Of course, if Outlaw started, we were down 19 at half, and Monia hadn't played . . . you could pretty much suggest the same thing.


----------



## BlazerMania (Apr 5, 2004)

Hey Mixum, is this not exactly what we all expected this year?


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

um losing...YEs...losing by 42 and giving up 15 threes....NO


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I don't blame Nate for not playing Outlaw....He looks absolutely lost when he's out there, he takes ridiculously dumb shots and makes even more stupid passes....IMO this upcoming draft is open for every position except PG.....

With Miles being injured without a doubt Viktor should be the starter....


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Rueben needs to start. Simple as that.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

Why is someone telling it like it is considered trolling? The entire franchise is an embarrasment....from the product on the floor to the 30-year lows in attendance.....stop trying to blow sunshineup the butts of the people that see it like it is..


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

NBAGOD said:


> Why is someone telling it like it is considered trolling? The entire franchise is an embarrasment....from the product on the floor to the 30-year lows in attendance.....stop trying to blow sunshineup the butts of the people that see it like it is..


xx


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Earth to anyone who isn't paying attention...all teams lose games....all teams lose games by big margins...Even on occasion a team who is the top team in the NBA will get blown out by the worst team in the NBA.

Portland wasn't tremendously off their average. Phoenix shot hot tonight, as they often do, and in case you hadn't paid attention they score a lot against a lot of teams.

It's the way it goes. We know we're not a great team, so why go into panic mode over something we already know?


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Because panicing and making several new threads on practically the same subject when something goes wrong, in a ten minute span, by the same person, is the 'hip' and 'in' thing to do.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I'm not panicking, in so much as I'm pissed off. I hope this game resonates this group of players for the rest of their careers...something that they don't want to EVER experience again.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

NBAGOD said:


> Why is someone telling it like it is considered trolling? The entire franchise is an embarrasment....from the product on the floor to the 30-year lows in attendance.....stop trying to blow sunshineup the butts of the people that see it like it is..


I had decided to take an extended break from this place (and after this post, I return to it) because of certain posters on the board that are really taking any interest I do have in posting and talking about the team and pissing on it.

But after tonites game, I had to post something. For starters, 30 years ago, the team was drawing under 5K for their games, so making such wrong statements that "30 year lows in atendance" seems to show a gross missunderstanding how just how bad things were when the team was young.

Secondly, do we really need to hear the same people *****ing about the same damn things over and over? For gods sake, we know the team sucks. you don't need to trump it out every g-damn game that they lose. we don't need to hear about former blazers, we don't need to hear about how "why is X starting? it's an absolute joke" when it's not like this team currently has anyone thats an out-right better starter for all but 1 position AND certain posters would ***** about said position REGARDLESS of who was starting. 

There is something to be said of taking a break away from posting, and just reading the board. You realize how trivial and petty most of the discussions on here are (myself included). you realize that the same people ***** about the same things, and always bring up the same (repeated) points about how the team used to be better in the past. Or that we should trade for players (altho never saying who, or realizing that who we'd want, we couldn't get for who we'd trade)..Sometimes it's just pointless to even bother posting here. If we aren't hearing about how poor telfair is shooting, it's about how we should all be happy with the "winning atmosphere" that is being made, implying that if things aren't good now, they'll never be good. 

It's not a damn race people, it's a marathon. We might suck now, but that doesn't mean we'll suck forever, or that some mythical draft pick in 2 years is the "only thing" that'll save this franchise. We're bad because the team is young, not because we're devoid of talent. Remember back when Indiana took the Blazers to the wood shed back in like 97 or 98? By 65 points? The game after the Blazers beat the Bulls IN chicago?

I imagine if this board was around (or Fanhome or RealGM) we would've had people jumping off of brigdes and other people making up excuses left and right. You know what? **** happens, deal with it. Complaining about things that "didn't happen" or "should've happened" or whatever, just gets old. Don't you ever get tired of saying the same crap over and over? God knows I get tired of hearing how we should've kept rasheed, I'm glad we traded rasheed..detroit won the title so that proves sheed was great...the grizz did better, so bonzi was worth keeping..we shouldn't have drafted telfair, we could've gotten him at 22, we should've drafted jefferson, qyntel woods (period)..we should've drafted paul, we should've done this, we should've done that..damon is evil, damon is great, sheed eats babys, sheed is a family man, derek anderson should've been this, you're not a real fan, you're a troll, adam morrison is the next larry bird, adam morrison isn't...blah blah blah, day in and day out for the last 3 years..good god, it gets boring.

when we finally move on from that crap, maybe it'll be interesting to talk about the blazers again. 

It's kind of like how when Rick Pitino was the coach of the celtics, and Celtic fans would chant "larry! larry! larry!" during games (esp in the playoffs, iirc)..and he said (after the game)..

"folks, larry bird isn't coming out that door. Danny Ainge isn't coming out that door. Robert Parish isn't coming out that door, Kevin McHale isn't coming out that door. They're old grey haired men. Cheer who we have now, instead of who we HAD." (or something along those lines)

That applies to us now. Let go of the past, and realize that that almost death like grip that some of you have on it, is killing any interest that a lot of fans have on the team.

I'll see you guys when talking about the team with you doesn't cause me to hate talking about the team with you.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

cliffnotes?

:cheers:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

and another thing..the word is rIdiculous, not rEdiculous. Jeesh, it's called a dictionary, try using it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> and another thing..the word is rIdiculous, not rEdiculous. Jeesh, it's called a dictionary, try using it.


Wow! I think Hap is Cyberpissed...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

it doesn't take a geniuos to figure that out... :eek8:


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

its only the internet guys

but i feel hap on taking a break from this board - but from another angle , he's sick of the bashing - im sick of the overblown optimism. there is barely a middle ground here , either yer a homer or a hater it seems.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

It is all about delivery. I do not think many people would have a problem with Mixum if he learned how to communicate in a clear and constructive manner. All he does now is make incredibly rash broad generalizations (a big no no of communication, never generalize, it only causes chaos.), call people in the orginization names, make three topics on basically the same subject, only slightly worded differently. He also hardly ever gets into a serious conversation with anyone, ignoring their factual evidence, and generally disappearing when it appears his thread is being torn apart by fact and logic. 

I'm not a big fan of Ed, but he knows how to communicate, sticks around, and actually has a conversation with you. 

We also see Ed during good and bad times. Mixum, we hardly see during good times (although he did have that nice Telfair post, but then he followed that up with about six end of the world posts, I believe.) but we always see him during the 'bad' times.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Great post, Hap. What we all need right now is the long perspective.

I'm reminded of the movie "Hoosiers." When their fans started grumbling about the team and chanting the name of a missing player, Gene Hackman told them, "This is your team. I would hope you would cheer for who we are, not for who we are not."

Or words to that effect.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Gene Hackman told them, "This is your team. I would hope you would cheer for who we are, not for who we are not."


Wasn't that Donald Rumsfeld?

barfo


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah I definitly agree with Hap. I've been here for over a year. I read this board every damn day. See my post count? There's a reason for that. I love to talk Blazers, but every discussion degenerates into what we did wrong, who needs to be fired, or (the worst) 12 page threads of arguing. You know the ones, where two people write goddamn term papers to each other to no end, constantly quoting each other and taking things out of context just to win the argument when the original point is lost. Thats what I hate. Seriously, when I see a thread is over 5 pages, it's safe to assume it's not even worth reading. 

To conclude: Why didn't they play Ha? Nate should be fired.

But really, Phoenix just had a hell of a game.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

Monia is 6-8 220. How is that too small to play SF? God, Buck Williams was that size.

And Outlaw has suffered from delayed reaction syndrome on defense. He showed a lot of promise last year, but this year he's looked very akward.

Darius was a HUGE part of our..what you could call sucsess early this season, of course we're going to suck without him.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> and another thing..the word is rIdiculous, not rEdiculous. Jeesh, it's called a dictionary, try using it.


of all people.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TradeShareefNow said:


> Yeah I definitly agree with Hap. I've been here for over a year. I read this board every damn day. See my post count? There's a reason for that. I love to talk Blazers, but every discussion degenerates into what we did wrong, who needs to be fired, or (the worst) 12 page threads of arguing. You know the ones, where two people write goddamn term papers to each other to no end, constantly quoting each other and taking things out of context just to win the argument when the original point is lost. Thats what I hate. Seriously, when I see a thread is over 5 pages, it's safe to assume it's not even worth reading.


Wow... you've been here a whole year, and all you've seen is people complaining about how the team is going to stink and how the Blazers management is running the team into the ground?

Might that be because... I don't know... the team stinks and the Blazers management is running the team into the ground?

The community's tone (since I've been around many of these people) has always been an argumentative one--there's no getting around it. But many of us have become soured on the current direction of the team because the team sucks. Because the GM and upper management have consistently put winning basketball games behind other considerations.

I can understand that you value other things above winning... it's your call as to why you follow the team. But for me, and I think for others, losing gets old, and excuses from management get old. If we can't vent in this forum, then there's really no where else we can.

Ed O.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)




----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Ed O said:


> But for me, and I think for others, losing gets old, and excuses from management get old.


Sure, losing gets old. So why are we complaining? We had, what, almost 20 years of making the playoffs? Now we have 3 losing seasons and we want to mutiny? Imagine we're the Hawks, then thank your lucky stars we've had it good in recent memory. I think most people here have unrealistic expectations of what the management is supposed to achieve in such a short amount of time. Rebuilding takes time. Sometimes more than 5 years. Ask the Clips, ask Golden State, ask the Wizards. 

It's our time to suck. Plain and simple. Would you rather have trader Bob? Would you rather have 5 more years of Jail Blazer jokes, 1st round playoff exits, and the largest payroll in the NBA to show for it? Oh good. Well, if thats what it takes to win, then I'm rooting for someone else. 

I'm not saying that management is doing the best job, I'd do things differently myself. But I don't think they're running the team into the ground. They are doing what needs to be done to get over the Whitsitt era. Period. That involves rebuilding, rebuilding involves losing. 

Me, I'd rather lose 60 games with good kids then win 45 and be the _embarrassment of the NBA._


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TradeShareefNow said:


> It's our time to suck. Plain and simple. Would you rather have trader Bob? Would you rather have 5 more years of Jail Blazer jokes, 1st round playoff exits, and the largest payroll in the NBA to show for it? Oh good. Well, if thats what it takes to win, then I'm rooting for someone else.


When was it the Piston's time to suck? Or the Spurs? Or the Lakers?

Funny how most teams don't have to suck for this long before they win titles, isn't it?

As for whether I'd prefer Trader Bob: hell yes, I would.



> I'm not saying that management is doing the best job, I'd do things differently myself. But I don't think they're running the team into the ground. They are doing what needs to be done to get over the Whitsitt era. Period. That involves rebuilding, rebuilding involves losing.
> 
> Me, I'd rather lose 60 games with good kids then win 45 and be the _embarrassment of the NBA._


Heh. When we were the "embarrassment of the NBA" we were capable of winning any night and we were capable of pushing a team in the first round of the playoffs... at worst.

Now? We're the "embarrassment of the NBA" because we suck.

As I said: you can disagree, but I'd take the former as a Blazers fan ANY time over the drek that we have to watch right now.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

All NBA franchises have sucked at one time or another....In fact every franchise in professional sports has.....Its part of being a sports fan, eventually its going to happen to your team.....After 20 years plus of winning I can handle a couple of losing seasons.....Its not like it was inevitable...it was going to happen at one time or another....Some fans are simply spoiled and dont realize that...


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Ed O said:


> When was it the Piston's time to suck?


They sucked pretty hard when it was the one man Stackhouse scoring hour.



Ed O said:


> Or the Spurs?


The year after they drafted Duncan, they had the biggest turnaround in games won in NBA history.



Ed O said:


> Or the Lakers?


After they lost Magic and before they got Shaq. Anyway, the point is that those teams didn't have such a giant run of making the playoffs. They've had their off years, but have been blessed with good management to get them back to the top after a few years of being at the bottom. Few teams get that. Whitsitt certainly was not one of those.



Ed O said:


> Funny how most teams don't have to suck for this long before they win titles, isn't it?


Actually, MOST teams don't win titles.



Ed O said:


> When we were the "embarrassment of the NBA" we were capable of winning any night and we were capable of pushing a team in the first round of the playoffs... at worst.


Seems to me that after 2000, that was the BEST we could do.



Ed O said:


> Now? We're the "embarrassment of the NBA" because we suck.


There are worse. We are not an embarrassment. We have a good coach and young guys willing to learn. That's all we can ask after dismantling the team. 



Ed O said:


> I'd take the former as a Blazers fan ANY time over the drek that we have to watch right now.


Can you imagine another 5 years of the big spending, jail blazer days? Do you really think that would of yielded a championship? I think if that kind of thing happened for another decade, Paul Allen would of gotten sick of losing money for little success and bad press. I would bet that eventually, he would consider selling the team.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Ed O said:


> When was it the Piston's time to suck? Or the Spurs? Or the Lakers?
> 
> Funny how most teams don't have to suck for this long before they win titles, isn't it?
> 
> As for whether I'd prefer Trader Bob: hell yes, I would.


http://www.nba.com/pistons/history/200001-56326-143.html
2001


> Detroit finished 32-50, fifth in the Central Division and did not make the playoffs for the first time in three years. The Pistons led the NBA in rebounding at 45.5 rpg. The team lost eight straight home games from December 30 through February 2.



http://www.nba.com/lakers/history/lakers_history_new.html#29
....2 years before the Shaq era....


> Magic Johnson had another moment in the Lakers' sun in 1993-94, but it was brief and added only a glimmer of excitement to the club's worst season in almost two decades. The Lakers lost their last 10 games and finished at 33-49, out of the playoffs for the first time since the 1975-76 season. The record was the second worst since the club had come to Los Angeles in 1960. The 1993-94 Lakers had trouble both on offense and defense. The team yielded opponents an average of 104.7 points per game (19th in the league), while its offense generated a franchise record low of 100.4 points per contest.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

TradeShareefNow said:


> Imagine we're the Hawks


That sure doesn't take much imagination. 



> I think most people here have unrealistic expectations of what the management is supposed to achieve in such a short amount of time. Rebuilding takes time. Sometimes more than 5 years. Ask the Clips, ask Golden State, ask the Wizards.


It's a mixture. Some are mad because it isn't happening faster, and some are mad because they know it will be years (if ever). Blazer fans come in many varieties.



> It's our time to suck. Plain and simple. Would you rather have trader Bob? Would you rather have 5 more years of Jail Blazer jokes, 1st round playoff exits, and the largest payroll in the NBA to show for it?


Me, yes. I sure would. Sign me up! I know opinions vary on this, however.



> Oh good. Well, if thats what it takes to win, then I'm rooting for someone else.


Well, you don't have to, because we won't be doing what it takes to win anytime soon (as you pointed out above). 



> Me, I'd rather lose 60 games with good kids then win 45 and be the _embarrassment of the NBA._


Me, I'd rather win, because a title like the _embarrassment of the NBA_ is sort of like being called the _biggest slut in the whorehouse_. But it sounds like the current team is just what you want, so be happy. Support the team. And post here about the blazers! We all (being Blazer fans) want to feel good about the team, even us pessimists. 

barfo


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

barfo said:


> a title like the _embarrassment of the NBA_ is sort of like being called the _biggest slut in the whorehouse_.


Paaaaahahahahahahahah, oh god thats so true.

Good point.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TradeShareefNow said:


> They sucked pretty hard when it was the one man Stackhouse scoring hour.


ONE season. 

The Blazers are in the middle of season #2 (or 3), and there's no sign of it getting better.



> The year after they drafted Duncan, they had the biggest turnaround in games won in NBA history.


Again, ONE season.



> After they lost Magic and before they got Shaq.


The Lakers combined for 72 wins in the 92-93 and 93-94 seasons. That's hardly sucking, but even if we consider it to be, their ride as suckers was short-lived compared to what the Blazers are looking at.



> Anyway, the point is that those teams didn't have such a giant run of making the playoffs. They've had their off years, but have been blessed with good management to get them back to the top after a few years of being at the bottom. Few teams get that. Whitsitt certainly was not one of those.


Well, because Whitsitt didn't LET the team get to the bottom.

Your criticism of Whitsitt is like someone blaming me for not being able to stop beating my wife... I can't stop because I never started.



> Actually, MOST teams don't win titles.


True dat. 



> Seems to me that after 2000, that was the BEST we could do.


Yeah... and who wants to be a quarter away from winning a championship? I guess we should definitely aim higher. Like staying within 40 of the Suns next time we're in Arizona.



> There are worse. We are not an embarrassment.


I disagree. Based on the comments of the Suns' broadcast crew tonight, I think that they would, too.



> We have a good coach and young guys willing to learn. That's all we can ask after dismantling the team.


And all Saddam Hussein can ask for after gassing a bunch of Kurds is life in prison.

Dismantling the team was a bad idea, and the half-assed, start-and-stop way it was done was even worse.



> Can you imagine another 5 years of the big spending, jail blazer days? Do you really think that would of yielded a championship? I think if that kind of thing happened for another decade, Paul Allen would of gotten sick of losing money for little success and bad press. I would bet that eventually, he would consider selling the team.


But now, with attendance at an all-time low, he's SURE to remain a devoted Blazers owner![/sarcasm]

I doubt we would have won the championship if we had kept the Whitsitt team together, but I think that we would have won a LOT more games than we will end up having won, and I think that there's a real chance that we would be in just as good of shape for the future as we will end up being (unless, of course, we end up getting a real stud or two out of the next two drafts... Oden alone would make all this **** worth it).

Ed O.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

I can see your points Ed O, and although I disagree with some, I see why you make them.

Here is, I think, the bottom line: money. 

We had a payroll of record proportions, and we're still paying it off. The NBA is still a business and money speaks louder than anything else, would you disagree? I'm not blaming all this on Whitsitt. His guys are gone. Yeah, we shouldn't of signed Miles, Zach and Theo for all that money. But think of what we'd be like if they walked for some other team? We really would break the 76'ers record. 

I'd love to get better players and win a few more games, but we simply don't have the funds in our new age of this crazy thing called "fiscal responsibility." While it's the right thing to do, it sure is hard to watch, I'll give you that.

Really, the only reason I kept watch the game tonight was to see how many points Phoenix would score.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

TradeShareefNow said:


> I can see your points Ed O, and although I disagree with some, I see why you make them.
> 
> Here is, I think, the bottom line: money.


I think you're PARTLY right, and I can appreciate that you're able to take that into account and have more patience because of it. There are two reasons that I cannot:

1. Nash has spent poorly. Extending Theo was RIDICULOUS. He was an injury-prone one-trick pony that was exiting his prime. He was a year away from free agency and had potential as an expiring contract, or to be sent to a contending team. But by signing him a year early... and inexplicably for so much money, Nash immediately neutered any trade value that he was going to have in the near term as well as hamstrung us for the next several years.

Zach's extension is slightly more defensible, but is still a monumental mistake. The team publically claimed that they were hitching their wagon to Zach in SPITE of the fact that there was little evidence he was a franchise player and in SPITE of the fact that the team had SAR as a perfectly suitable replacement for Zach. And then the team signed Zach to a massive, massive deal a year away from free agency... why? Zach might have deferred some money, but the team simply choked by signing him so early.

Darius Miles is a questionable signing, too, but it's a less clear mistake. Although in an era of financial responsibility, it's a pretty strange move considering the other options we had at the 3 in the long term and relative abundance of decent-to-good swing men prospects around the NBA.

2. I include Paul Allen as part of my frustration. I know that Nash was hired to do part of what he's done... I think that's the reason the Blazers had to fall back to their fourth (fifth?) option of Nash, as opposed to Stefanski or Buford or Wallace... each of whom reportedly turned them down to stay with the Nets, Spurs, and Celtics, respectively. Paul Allen was tired of losing money, and I can understand that but I'm not happy about his change of heart.

Paul Allen's money was one of the FEW differentiators in the NBA. LA and NY have, well, LA and NY. Phoenix and Orlando have great weather and golf. Dallas and Portland (and NY) have insane amounts of cash to throw around.

Well, no longer. Paul Allen's no cheapskate, for sure, but the Blazers' ways of being big spenders appear to be over and, when coupled with a less-than-stellar GM like John Nash, it adds up to losses and no clear way to avoid them any better than most of the other teams in the NBA.

I want the Blazers to be special again, and I want to think that they'll come out of this. But success in the NBA requires something special... and a lot of luck. Portland doesn't seem to have much of either coming their way lately or any time that I can see.

Ed O.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

I haven't had the chance to watch many Blazer games this season. I know that they suck though, but I also know that the youngs have been gettin' time and although their record is pretty disgusting it'll get better...I hope. Is mixum Xerix by the way? I'm hoping that after this semester is finished with I'll have a chance to get a little more organized so I can pay more attention to the blazers, particularly the younger ones.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

for guys like me and Ed, it boils down to watching our team win games. 

for many here, there is no single priority. it's a mishmash of character, personality, spending, reputation, wins and other stuff. 

hardly surprising the two views rarely agree. 

my team is really, really bad. their only plan seems to be the "Masbee Doctrine": get even worse and hope for a swell draft pick. maybe several. it's the kind of plan that is so humiliating and against the ideas of competitive sport that, although 29 other teams have the exact same option, only one or two others seem to be following it. 

I'll admit to wincing a little at some of Rider's legendary comments. I wasn't thrilled when Damon and Sheed got pulled over in the Hummer. I could really have lived without the disasters of Kemp and Qyntel. 

But all of the PR disasters of the past 10 years don't really bother me as much as seeing my squad lose by 40+ points on a 5 game losing skid. 

one of the Suns announcers last night said something like, "40% of their wins came against Atlanta, and they really aren't even an NBA team." as depressing as that is for a Blazer fan, that comment has got to be even more humiliating for a Hawks fan. 

"They aren't really even an NBA team." 

how far away are the Blazers from being described the same way? it just doesn't get more embarassing than that.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

theWanker said:


> for guys like me and Ed, it boils down to watching our team win games.
> 
> for many here, there is no single priority. it's a mishmash of character, personality, spending, reputation, wins and other stuff.
> 
> ...


I fail to see any good reason why I should care what the Suns announcers say about the Blazers, Hawks or anyone else. 

Once a fan, always a fan what annoucers, analysts, coaches, other fans etc..say about my team doesn't matter. They are still my team.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> I fail to see any good reason why I should care what the Suns announcers say about the Blazers, Hawks or anyone else.
> 
> Once a fan, always a fan what annoucers, analysts, coaches, other fans etc..say about my team doesn't matter. They are still my team.



So the term jail blazers used by the national media doesn't bother you?

I ask that seriously, because it has never bothered me that much.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So the term jail blazers used by the national media doesn't bother you?
> 
> I ask that seriously, because it has never bothered me that much.


It certainly didn't bother me when it was true...and it hardly bothers me now. I just blow it off as another uninformed journalist. It certainly doesn't embarass me or change my perception of the Blazers team.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> It certainly didn't bother me when it was true...and it hardly bothers me now. I just blow it off as another uninformed journalist. It certainly doesn't embarass me or change my perception of the Blazers team.



Same. I would pefer they didn't have the reputation. But personally what others say means so much less than what really matters to me . . . winning.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> I fail to see any good reason why I should care what the Suns announcers say about the Blazers, Hawks or anyone else.


I generally agree with this attitude. I've never really given a damn one way or another about all the Jail Blazer bad press. if anything, I mostly found the antics sideline entertainment. 

the one exception I have is when the criticism is about bad performances. I just don't like watching my team's inability to compete turn them into an NBA laughingstock.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I loved our hateable winners. :brokenhea

But I'm still going to support the team we have, and dream of better days.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> I loved our hateable winners. :brokenhea
> 
> But I'm still going to support the team we have, and dream of better days.


sorry, I edited my prior post to make it more concise and now yours doesn't make much sense. 

my last point, which I certainlys stand by: Give me hateable winners over loveable losers every time.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> I loved our hateable winners. :brokenhea
> 
> But I'm still going to support the team we have, and dream of better days.


I'm enjoying this thread. I have agreed with the last two posts. 

However, eventhough I will support the team, doesn't mean I won't question management's decisions or direction the team is going.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

theWanker said:


> I generally agree with this attitude. I've never really given a damn one way or another about all the Jail Blazer bad press. if anything, I mostly found the antics sideline entertainment.
> 
> the one exception I have is when the criticism is about bad performances. I just don't like watching my team's inability to compete turn them into an NBA laughingstock.


I don't like my team playing at a level which merits them being a laughingstock either, but I also don't care if others do choose to make them one. 

I doesn't change the fact that I am still a fan, love the team and am just dissapointed in their overall play. If that makes any sense.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

in 35 seasons of Trail Blazers basketball....

2.8% - won NBA title 
5.7% - Lost in the Finals

8.5% - Won Western Conference
8.5% - Lost in WC Finals

17.1% - Won WC Semis
8.5% - Lost WC Semis

25.6% - Won WC 1st Round
40.0% - Lost WC 1st Round

74.4% - Made Playoffs
25.7% - Missed Playoffs


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

so we stink ohok which would you rather have? 

a. a stinky team that is young and cheap

b. an over paid old stinky team?

your pick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> so we stink ohok which would you rather have?
> 
> a. a stinky team that is young and cheap
> 
> ...


When did we have an overpaid stinky team?

It's a total strawman. The Blazers were always right around 50 wins, even when they were an incredibly overpaid bunch. This team will be lucky to get half that number of wins.

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i asked you which one its simple a or b? 

either way we would be rebuilding right now just how much are you willing to pay for a stinky team? a or b ed its pretty simple.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Why all the nostalgia for the first round and out days? 

I'd much rather have a team that loses 50 games year, but has the potential to be a contender in 3-4 years than a mediocre aging team with zero upside. 

I'd much rather have 1 championship in the next 20 years, than another 20 year streak of playoff appearances without a championship. Even if it meant 19 years in the lottery. In life as in the NBA, moral victories for 2nd place are for losers. 

Unless you have a legitimate contender it's better to be in the lottery.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> i asked you which one its simple a or b?
> 
> either way we would be rebuilding right now just how much are you willing to pay for a stinky team? a or b ed its pretty simple.


There ARE no old and stinky teams in the NBA.

Why would that possibly be a choice?

It's like asking if I'd prefer a 6'7" rookie or a serial killer at starting center.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Uh, speaking of Monia starting... :raised_ey


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> There ARE no old and stinky teams in the NBA.
> 
> Ed O.



NY Knicks last year?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

houston?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> There ARE no old and stinky teams in the NBA.
> 
> Ed O.


Tell that to Houston.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Verro said:


> In life as in the NBA, moral victories for 2nd place are for losers.


Uh huh. Sure. So, if you can't be a world champion, you are a loser. 
I wonder how many of us here can claim to be the best in the world at anything?
Anything that millions of people care about, that is? 

Yeah, I thought not. 

Losers. 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Uh huh. Sure. So, if you can't be a world champion, you are a loser.
> I wonder how many of us here can claim to be the best in the world at anything?
> Anything that millions of people care about, that is?
> 
> ...


I have the uncanny ability to recite where nearly every NBA player who has played since the 80's went to college....A couple obscure players you might get me on....I also know all the good players pre-1980....I think I'm the best in the world at it and I doubt anyone can beat me....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I have the uncanny ability to recite where nearly every NBA player who has played since the 80's went to college....A couple obscure players you might get me on....I also know all the good players pre-1980....I think I'm the best in the world at it and I doubt anyone can beat me....


Yes, but no one cares.

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Yes, but no one cares.
> 
> barfo


My friends do...

Whenever they are debating sports they give me a ring-a-ling to confirm.....

College's is my specialty, but I know all around pretty useless sports facts.....

I've applied to Stump the Schwab many times, but haven't heard back......

I'm sure Schwab though no one would ever care and now look they do, and he has his own show from it...


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> My friends do...


Well, the stated spec was millions of people care (e.g. NBA basketball) not two people care...



> Whenever they are debating sports they give me a ring-a-ling to confirm.....


Well, I hope you give them a ring-a-ling-ding back!



> College's is my specialty


Really? I never would have guessed  



> I'm sure Schwab though no one would ever care and now look they do, and he has his own show from it...


Is this Les? I've never heard of this but perhaps I'm wrong and millions of people do care about which college a particular player went to. If you are really the best in the world then I don't see why Mr. Free Beef doesn't have you on his show. Confusing. Perhaps he (or she?) is a Morrison-hater?

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Well, the stated spec was millions of people care (e.g. NBA basketball) not two people care...


I thought we were talking about people who matter...



> Is this Les? I've never heard of this but perhaps I'm wrong and millions of people do care about which college a particular player went to. If you are really the best in the world then I don't see why Mr. Free Beef doesn't have you on his show. Confusing. Perhaps he (or she?) is a Morrison-hater?


Howie Schwab, the sports trivia genius with his own show in which people come in and stump him....Les Schwab died a couple years back I believe and I'm not sure that he had his own show...and regarding the free beef, my brother works there so we get the free beef anyways...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Give it up, Barfo. Clearly Zags' has masterfully ripped a hole in your entire point and Verro is, no doubt, wise enough to hold his position that anyone who isn't the very best at whatever he or she does is a loser... and probably without morals at that. Once again your futile attempt at a "reality check" has been foiled!

Yay team!

:cheers: 

This public service message comes to you from, and has been brought to you by, the department of superfluity, verbosity, braggadociosity (and repetition, just for good measure) department.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Give it up, Barfo. Clearly Zags' has masterfully ripped a hole in your entire point and Verro is, no doubt, wise enough to hold his position that anyone who isn't the very best at whatever he or she does is a loser... and probably without morals at that. Once again your futile attempt at a "reality check" has been foiled!


Yes, I shall retreat, tail between legs, like the loser that I am. 

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> NY Knicks last year?


Marbury: 28
Crawford: 25
TThomas: 28
KThomas: 32
Sweetney: 22
Ariza: 19

(Ages as of the end of the 04-05 season)

Those players accounted for 337 of the Knicks 410 starts last year... do you think that's an old team?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Tell that to Houston.


Well, Houston has been bad so far, but I'm not sure they'll stay that way.

But are they an old team? McGrady is 26 and Yao is 25.

Wesley is 35 and Mutombo is 92, but generally the team has a lot of players in their prime or just outside of it.

They've got a really good mix in terms of ages, IMO, and I think that their experience will be one of the reasons they turn it around as the season moves forward.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Neither the Knicks nor the Rockets are old and stinky teams. The Knicks have youth as Ed has pointed out, but they just aren't that good. The Rockets are very good when T-Mac is playing. Unfortunately his back problems have restricted his availability.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Marbury: 28
> Crawford: 25
> TThomas: 28
> KThomas: 32
> ...


Well that is an interesting was to look at it. 

I'm not an internet guru but I did a quick google search and came up with the following Knick roster for Nov of 2004 (below). The average years in the NBA for that roster is 7 years. I notice you didn't mention Anderson, Baker, Hardaway, Houston, Mohammed, Norris, and Williams. Maybe because they didn't start? Although that is the point, the team is old and sucked so they had no choice but to play some of the youth. 

Also, you seem to find numbers pretty well. Who started more games, Mohammed or Sweetney. Because if the answer is Mohammed I'm going to have to wonder if there was some deception going on trying to prove your point.

49 Shandon Anderson F 6-6 210 Dec. 31, 1973 Georgia '96 8 
21 Trevor Ariza F 6-8 200 Jun. 30, 1985 UCLA ’07 R 
42 Vin Baker F 6-11 240 Nov. 23, 1971 Hartford ’93 11 
11 Jamal Crawford G 6-5 190 Mar. 20, 1980 Michigan ’03 4 
1 Anfernee Hardaway G/F 6-7 215 Jul. 18, 1971 Memphis ’94 11 
20 *Allan Houston G 6-6 205 Apr. 20, 1971 Tennessee '93 11 
3 Stephon Marbury G 6-2 200 Feb. 20, 1977 Georgia Tech ’99 8 
13 Nazr Mohammed C 6-10 250 Sep. 5, 1977 Kentucky ’99 6 
25 Moochie Norris G 6-1 185 Jul. 23, 1973 West Florida ’96 7 
50 Michael Sweetney F 6-8 275 Oct. 25, 1982 Georgetown '04 1 
40 Kurt Thomas F/C 6-9 235 Oct. 4, 1972 Texas Christian '95 9 
5 Tim Thomas F 6-10 240 Feb. 26, 1977 Villanova ’00 7 
31 Jerome Williams F 6-9 206 May 10, 1973 Georgetown ’96 8


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Also, you seem to find numbers pretty well. Who started more games, Mohammed or Sweetney. Because if the answer is Mohammed I'm going to have to wonder if there was some deception going on trying to prove your point.


Wonder all you want. I went to http://www.nba.com/knicks/stats/2004/index.html and looked at last year's roster's stats (basketballreference.com doesn't list starts).

Nazr DID start 54 games for the Knicks (and Sweetney only 22, although they played almost an identical number of minutes), but he wasn't listed on that page because he was traded mid-season. I didn't omit him on purpose, and I was wondering who accounted for the lion's share of the "missing" 73 starts. Clearly it was Mohammed.

Of course, Mohammed was 27 at the end of last year, so it further reinforces that the Knicks were NOT an old team last year.

I think that the ideal way to establish the age of a team is to establish an "age per minute" stat, but I'm at work and don't have time to set that up at the moment.

The Knicks had some older guys, for sure, but check out how many (few) minutes they played:

Jerome Williams: 1211
Hardaway: 894
Rose: 613
Houston: 532
Norris: 321
Baker: 191
Shandon Anderson: 20 (that's right. 20)

Jerome Williams was only 31 at the end of the year, but I've charitably included him as part of the "old team" that you wonder if I'd omitted merely because they didn't support my assertion that the Knicks weren't an old team.

Compare that to the guys that I listed:

Marbury: 3281
Crawford: 2688
TThomas: 1940
KThomas: 2855
Sweetney: 1509
Ariza: 1382

Mohammed played 1519 minutes, but other than that NBA.com-based omission I named the 6 guys who played the most minutes.

Do you still think I'm attempting to deceive someone here? Because while I definitely have better things to do than lie to people, defending myself from being called a liar is something I make time for.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Wonder all you want. I went to http://www.nba.com/knicks/stats/2004/index.html and looked at last year's roster's stats (basketballreference.com doesn't list starts).
> 
> Nazr DID start 54 games for the Knicks (and Sweetney only 22, although they played almost an identical number of minutes), but he wasn't listed on that page because he was traded mid-season. I didn't omit him on purpose, and I was wondering who accounted for the lion's share of the "missing" 73 starts. Clearly it was Mohammed.
> 
> ...


Come on, I never said you lied. You know the difference between lying and playing with numbers to support your position. And yes, I found it strange, and perhaps deceptive, that you used Sweetney (citing because he was in the group that started the most games) when I recalled Mohammed being the starter for the team. If your saying that was an error based on the website info, I get it.

But I'll still question the logic of not calling the team old. If the old payers didn't suck, they would play more minutes. So by your defintion of an old team (age per minute) I guess you have created a formula where there would never be an old sucky team. Add to that, that if the team sucked there is even more incentive to play younger player to see if they have potential for future yeears (Blazers last year). I just disagree with how you define old team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> But I'll still question the logic of not calling the team old. If the old payers didn't suck, they would play more minutes. So by your defintion of an old team (age per minute) I guess you have created a formula where there would never be an old sucky team. Add to that, that if the team sucked there is even more incentive to play younger player to see if they have potential for future yeears (Blazers last year). I just disagree with how you define old team.


What is there to disagree with? Look at the old players from the Knicks... with the exception of Kurt Thomas, NONE of the significant Knicks were even remotely old.

Are you saying that the Knicks were an old team? That Shandon Anderson and his 20 minutes made them old, or that Houston and Moochie Norris somehow influenced the team's makeup in a significant way last year?

I don't have a magic "33 years old is old" formula here... but I just don't see (and haven't seen recently) an old team that's very bad in the NBA. It doesn't mean that they do not and have never existed, but they aren't common.

The hypothetical posed was whether I would prefer an old, sucky team or a young, sucky team. I took it as a slam on the pre-Nash Blazers, who were older. Instead, it was allegedly a legit hypothetical and I just question (and indeed doubt) that it's a question that's even worth asking as some sort of a defense to the current crappy state of our team and franchise... because old sucky teams just don't happen in the NBA, so that a young sucky team might be preferable has no value.

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Talk about a topic covering a lot of different grounds.

1. I'm not sure it's a no brainer to take Whitsit over Nash. The main difference was money and both have made some pretty significant mistakes. It's a lot easier to put deals together when cost isn't a factor as much as cap manipulation is. That said, I enjoyed the constant action Whitsit and an open wallet brought to the table.

2. Someone mentioned taking a 1 and done playoff team over this group and to be honest, I like the potential for something better with this group. Mainly because I feel like developing young players is the only way that this team will be able to significantly improve (to a deep playoff/championship team) unless MSFT hits 50 again.

3. On the topic of what other announcers say. I don't really care - even about the JailBlazer references. I have a lot more disdain for the fans who complain about the opinions of these professionals.

4. I really would have liked to see what the old team (Damon, Wallace etc.) could have accomplished under Nate. I feel like Cheeks was a nice guy - he certainly was during the time I spent with him - but a terrible coach. I think that given the tools Cheeks had to work with, Nate could have accomplished enough that we may not be in the midst of a 'youth movement'.

5. Someone, I think Ed, said that money was Portland's differentiater. I agree with this 100%. My hope is that with some limited success from this group, PA will once again open the wallet in an effort to get the team into the next level. Until then, I think we need to be patient and see what happens with the young guys.

Good night.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> What is there to disagree with? Look at the old players from the Knicks... with the exception of Kurt Thomas, NONE of the significant Knicks were even remotely old.
> 
> Are you saying that the Knicks were an old team? That Shandon Anderson and his 20 minutes made them old, or that Houston and Moochie Norris somehow influenced the team's makeup in a significant way last year?
> 
> ...


I wish I knew how to do that trick about answering only certain portions of a post at a time, so bare with me. 

I must not be making my point clearly (no comment needed) but the reason the old players were not signifcant is because they suck. (If they didn't suck they would be significant.) So if significance is the standard to count old players, then once again, you can never have an old team that sucks. Does that make any sense? In fact, Houston and Hardaway are old and have huge contracts, which is significant to the organization. So actually (thinking this out loud) the fact they get paid so much and don't contribute, makes them a "significant burden" to the Knicks. A team would much rather have some minimum salary young players to develop on the bench, but you can't exactly waive a Houston, Hardaway or even Anderson.

In my mind 33 is ancient in the NBA. Bodies age fast when playing pro sports and the average career in the NBA is short. If it takes 33 to be old, then you're right, the Knicks are not an old team. Is there a team with an average age of 33 or even close to that? What is the average age for the oldest NBA team?

I'm with you. I don't really care if the Knicks were old (whatever that means). But you threw out some numbers and asked if I still thought Knicks were old. I simply challenged the numbers and logic. As always, you are up the challenge . . .but one day (when you're really stressed out at work) I'll get you to cave. : )


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> My friends do...
> 
> Whenever they are debating sports they give me a ring-a-ling to confirm.....
> 
> ...


Don't quit your day job... er uhhh... don't forget to acquire a day job.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm a student.....

Photographic memory helps when your a student as well as a sports fan...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm a student.....


I know... was a jokey joke. Not necessarily a funny one...




> Photographic memory helps when your a student as well as a sports fan...


We get it... we're all impressed.

By the way, did you guys know that I have a huge @#%&?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I know... was a jokey joke. Not necessarily a funny one...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As well you should be.....

Whats a huge @#%&? ?

I don't get it...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats a huge @#%&? ?
> 
> I don't get it...


Whatever you want it to be...


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Whatever you want it to be...


Ever the diplomat.


----------

