# Nate erupts in practice.....



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Oregonlive.com



> "You are not good enough to waste days," McMillan continued in his speech after a more-than three hour film and practice session at the Pepsi Center, where the Blazers play Denver (0-2) tonight. "Yesterday was yesterday. You guys are better than you are showing, but you won't realize it until the focus and the commitment is there every single day.





> "Look, I'm not staying up until 3 a.m. watching film so we can come here and not practice and get our butts kicked tomorrow. You can't just flip a switch. And I can draw up whatever plays, and you can get whoever they say is the best coach in the league in here, and it won't matter unless you give the effort."



Darius:


> "We are a young team, and young players don't know the tempo of practice and what practice really means," Miles said. "I guess coach wanted to work on stuff, get a lot in and we (fooled) around. Nobody was really sweating, we didn't work hard, we didn't take care of what we needed to take care of."


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I am completely impressed with McMillan. He's just what this team needs. There should be no resting on laurels that haven't been earned yet. Practice should be taken just as seriously as the games.

Go, Nate!


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

You know what really got me from this article (which I really enjoyed by the way) was Ruben's reaction to the long practice and the accusatoins of not working hard. Look at Darius' quote above in Zagsfans post, and compare that to Rubens reaction here....




Ruben said:


> "He can't say that for everybody, because I know I came and practiced," veteran Ruben Patterson said. "But that's what he says; he's the coach. I ain't going to comment on the practices, but yeah, they're long . . . real long."
> 
> 
> "The thing he has to realize is that we are young, and when we are working on zone, some of these guys don't know when to rotate, when to talk, that stuff is going to take time. Shoot, we can be here forever."


Reub.....whether or not you were working hard....don't try and shuffle the blame off. You're a team......everyone should be working hard. If one person isn't working hard, it doesnt matter if everyone else is. Don't throw your teammates under the bus like that.


----------



## ThereIsNoTry (Oct 23, 2005)

I am impressed with Nate. But I am just as impressed with Miles, he made a comment as a leader saying they should of been working hard.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Is Mo Cheeks taking notes on all this back in Philly?

This is just too great...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Of course Quick managed to put the worst possible spin on it in his first paragraph, saying any good feeling from Minnesota game was soon gone. Earth to Quick: the good feeling from a game should last until the players get out of the shower. Then they work on the next game (exception: winning the championship, then they can take a little time off).

As for Patterson, even if he personally worked hard, his attitude stinks. He should not be saying "I worked hard, it's these other guys who are dumb & lazy". They are a team and setting himself apart from all the rest to guard his personal rep is not the action of a veteran leader, which he keeps proving he isn't. The practices would probably not be so long if guys were not goofing around.

I liked that McMillan ended by saying he had his say, now it's over. Today is a new day and they will be judged on what they do today. :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am off to work.. but I liked the article...

And I have no problem with Nate doing this.. cudos to him. THey nee dto learn its EVERY DAY work ethics that pay off. And YES, as a TEAM....

I think he is pouring the concrete on the foundation


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I ask you, would things be any different had Jerry Sloan been hired to coach the Blazers as opposed to Nate


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

For the first time since Adelman I actually have confidence in the coach of the Blazers!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.

The coach? Not his problem.

The management? Not their fault that they assembled a team that's so bad.

It's of course the PLAYERS' fault.

I hope that it gets through to these guys and I hope it instills a better work ethic in them, but I think that it's much more likely that players--young and old--will be tuning Nate out by the end of the season as the losses stack up.

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

What a shocker. Ed O. thinks the team is bad.
They played ONE GAME. They played reasonably well, brilliantly in Miles' case, but need to learn things so that their efforts result in W's. They were goofing off BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, in practice, rather than learning what they need to improve - and this is a young team, they need to learn things. McMillan gave them what-for for this. And it's management's fault? The coach's fault? 

Seems to me when guys admit they are not practicing, did not even break a sweat, that they were jerking around and that the coach was in fact correct to verbally skin them alive, well, they are probably right. I mean, if it's the coach's fault, what should he do? Say "nice boys" and give them a biscuit?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Man im loving Nate as our coach


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> I ask you, would things be any different had Jerry Sloan been hired to coach the Blazers as opposed to Nate


It would be for me. Sloan has a long history of being successful and I would trust (assuming he's going to be here for a while) that eventually he will mold players to work in his system or find other players that fit.

Nate has no such track record. He's been a mediocre coach and he might not have the maturity that Sloan does.

Remember that Jerry Sloan was the head coach for the Bulls for three years in the early 1980's. He had one good year but ended up getting fired partway through his third season his record was about .437. 

It was only seven years later, at the age of 47, that he emerged in Utah as the coach that he is today. It's conceivable that he's the same guy and Stockton and Malone just made him successful, but I think that there's a better chance that he learned and came back a better coach.

I'm not saying that Nate is definitely not a good coach... I think that he might be and probably will be someday if he's not now. But I'm not convinced that his methods are going to pay off for this team in the next 3-4 years. And I doubt he gets to his fifth year if things don't get significantly better than they are right now.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> What a shocker. Ed O. thinks the team is bad.


That I've said it before doesn't change the fact that this team sucks. People might get sick of it when I repeat myself because they've heard it before, but I'm not going to be quiet when what I've asserted previously turns out to be accurate.

You probably aren't going to trot out the A's for a reason the Blazers might make the playoffs the rest of this year, because now that the season has started that sort of hopeful thinking (which I admire, even when I reject it as a basis for how I watch the Blazers) evaporates when reality hits.



> They played ONE GAME. They played reasonably well, brilliantly in Miles' case, but need to learn things so that their efforts result in W's. They were goofing off BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION, in practice, rather than learning what they need to improve - and this is a young team, they need to learn things. McMillan gave them what-for for this. And it's management's fault? The coach's fault?


Miles is the only one who made that admission. Ruben and Juan said that it was right because the coach said so.

But listen: I called this some time ago. Almost everyone on this board was saying that this was going to be a young, hustling team. I maintained that youth does not imply hustle, and we can't rely on it.

And if I could see it, management should have, too. The coaching staff should have, too. Players are players and it's the job of management and coaches to put players in a position to succeed. Right now they've done a lousy job of it.

Should the players work harder? Probably. But so far this season it's been 100% finger pointing at players and the rest of the franchise deserves to point the finger at itself, too, IMO.



> Seems to me when guys admit they are not practicing, did not even break a sweat, that they were jerking around and that the coach was in fact correct to verbally skin them alive, well, they are probably right. I mean, if it's the coach's fault, what should he do? Say "nice boys" and give them a biscuit?


He needs to find a way to reach them. Maybe yelling at them is something he hasn't done before, and he's simply trying something new. I get the distinct impression that he's done this before... that he's doing the same thing over and over and he's still not happy.

I'm not saying he should give up, and I'm not saying he should change. He should do what he thinks is best. But I'm not convinced that it's going to work.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

ABM said:


> I ask you, would things be any different had Jerry Sloan been hired to coach the Blazers as opposed to Nate


Nope. Not one little bit.

Keep up the good work, Nate.

You know, there's something a touch sadistic about us getting pleasure from hearing about Nate whipping our players into shape.

PBF


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> ...


May I be blunt, Ed? Your contrarian act is getting very old. No matter what people say (even when it makes eminent sense), you love to take up the contrary position. Your whole schtick, as far as I can tell, is basically trying to make yourself look smarter than everybody else.

In the wake of a very impressive win by a young, inexperienced Blazer squad, you blast management for assembling a "bad" team. When the coach conducts a tough practice, you blame him for the team's problems. The players can apparently do no wrong in your eyes. You fawn at their feet and blast managment. That's your modus operandi and we know it very well.

Give it a break, would you?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> ...


You're making the mistake of applying Nate's admonishment to a different (and larger) context, Ed. Nate was going off about the player's effort during that one practice. And no, there IS no one else to "blame" for that.

You can curmudgeon all you want about Nash having traded Rasheed, Bonzi and McInnis away, or for letting Damon, Nick, DA, and Shareef walk, but none of that is relevant to this topic and context. The players who were at THAT practice were not putting in the EFFORT Nate wanted to see from THEM, so he told them so in no uncertain terms. Despite how you feel about Nash's moves, how can you - as a Blazers fan - NOT appreciate that?

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

old habits are hard to break.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> ...


For the most part, I don't see any blame being thrown around. I'm reading that a young team that many (including yourself, if I'm not mistaken) have called inconsistent and undisciplined is being pushed by their coach in both of those areas. That's a postive in my mind.

It's one thing to assign blame for "how bad the team is". That's firmly on management and I can't say that I'm happy with that. It's another to try to say it over and over again. I think, Ed, that you are becoming a victim of your prediction for Nate - being tuned out because of an over-repeated message.

Most on this board seem willing to focus on the present and future - where the team is at and where we all hope it is going. I, for one, don't want to continue to focus on "what has passed" that got the team to where it is.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> That I've said it before doesn't change the fact that this team sucks. People might get sick of it when I repeat myself because they've heard it before, but I'm not going to be quiet when what I've asserted previously turns out to be accurate.


You want to make sure everyone here knows you were right, right? Kinda like... "I told you so!", Ed?



> But listen: I called this some time ago. Almost everyone on this board was saying that this was going to be a young, hustling team. I maintained that youth does not imply hustle, and we can't rely on it.


So you bash Nate for telling the players they aren't working hard enough? Seems like you should be applauding him for seeing things your way and trying to do something about it.



> And if I could see it, management should have, too. The coaching staff should have, too. Players are players and it's the job of management and coaches to put players in a position to succeed. Right now they've done a lousy job of it.


Seems like Nate is actually doing a great job of it to me. They're an inexperienced team, and their talent isn't world-shaking quite yet. So IF they are going to win, it will be through synchronicity and *effort*. Seems to me that's exactly what Nate is trying to drill into them right now. How is that doing "a lousy job of it"?

Your problem is with MANAGEMENT, Ed. But you're projecting it onto anyone / everyone else involved w/ the franchise.



> Should the players work harder? Probably. But so far this season it's been 100% finger pointing at players and the rest of the franchise deserves to point the finger at itself, too, IMO.


The players who were at THAT practice were not putting in the EFFORT that Nate wanted to see from THEM, so he told them so in no uncertain terms. It's got _nothing_ to do with the fact that none of those players were named Rasheed, Bonzi, Jeff, Damon, Nick, Derek, or Shareef.



> He needs to find a way to reach them. Maybe yelling at them is something he hasn't done before, and he's simply trying something new. I get the distinct impression that he's done this before... that he's doing the same thing over and over and he's still not happy.
> 
> I'm not saying he should give up, and I'm not saying he should change. He should do what he thinks is best. But I'm not convinced that it's going to work.


Duly noted. We'll be ready for the "I told you so" if/when your suspicions become confirmed.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Give it a break, would you?


Give being right a break? No, thanks.

I didn't want the Blazers to tear down. You did. Now you're scrambling for something--anything--to show that real progress is being made.

That you were JUST calling for Zach and Darius to be traded doesn't stop you from suddenly seeing their good game as evidence that things are working.

I'm not being contrarian. I'm being realistic.

I don't begrudge people being optimistic and thinking that everything the team does is going to pay off, that every player should be capable of much more than they're currently doing, and that there's some sort of inevitability of Portland's return to glory just because it's the Blazers.

I don't agree with those things, though, and I'm not going to bite my tongue when the assertions are clearly erroneous to me.

This article this morning is EXACTLY what I predicted just a couple of weeks ago: the team allegedly not working hard and the players taking heat for it. Management and the coaching staff can do this--whether it's justified or not--at little cost to themselves in the short term. While it might end up alienating some of the key young players, it takes heat off of them for putting together a team that cannot win for the foreseeable future.

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> old habits are hard to break.


So true on so many different levels, Hap.

PBF


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Listening to ONE reporters' perspective on ONE practice or more than likely a FEW INSTANCES in that practice does not tell the whole story Ed...and if you weren't so blinded by your dislike of Blazer Mgmt, you would know that.....

Do you REALLY believe that Nate is yelling at these guys all of the time? Or is Quick just emphasizing that aspect of the practices based upon his OWN perception of what differentiates Nate from Mo?

I don't see any blame being tossed around by Nate or by Blazer mgmt...All I see is a coach demanding his players to stay focused...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that....

Quit being a hater Ed...I know you are not satisfied with what current Blazer mgmt has done...but sooner or later you better except the team for what it is, or just step away from watching\writing about them...b\c you currently sound like a broken record...your opinion has been duly noted...NUMEROUS times now...focus on something else....Your apparent glee of "I told you so's" after Blazer losses\etc... Is very UN-fan like.....

I don't like everything the team has done either, but at this point...As a FAN I am watching and rooting for the good things...Miles' performance last night was one of those......


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> May I be blunt, Ed? Your contrarian act is getting very old. No matter what people say (even when it makes eminent sense), you love to take up the contrary position. Your whole schtick, as far as I can tell, is basically trying to make yourself look smarter than everybody else.
> 
> In the wake of a *very impressive win * by a young, inexperienced Blazer squad, you blast management for assembling a "bad" team. When the coach conducts a tough practice, you blame him for the team's problems. The players can apparently do no wrong in your eyes. You fawn at their feet and blast managment. That's your modus operandi and we know it very well.
> 
> Give it a break, would you?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we *lose * to Minnesota?


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

So far as I can tell, Nate was not "yelling". "Yelling" is what we saw from PJ Carlesimo, a screamer if there ever was one. I don't even know if Nate raised his voice. What he DID do in no uncertain terms was to let them know their effort was not acceptable. Successful coaches, and I see no evidence McMillan is a bad coach, can accept physical errors. They can accept that a player may not have huge talent. But they damn well want the effort. And they are entitled to it. Nate did not get it and he let them know. And if Juan Dixon takes that attitude that he may not totally agree but will listen to his coach, that's just fine with me.

As for Sloan being so great, he did have a couple of guys named Stockton and Malone. That helps. I have not noticed greatness from Utah since. I'm not saying Sloan is a bad coach. I'm just saying having a couple of hall of famers for 18 years makes a coach's job a lot easier.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Give being right a break? No, thanks.
> 
> I didn't want the Blazers to tear down. You did. Now you're scrambling for something--anything--to show that real progress is being made.


A coach ripping into his players for not putting in the effort required to improve IS progress, Ed. Mo never did stuff like that, which incidentally contributed to the bad habits Nate is now trying to break, which incidentally contributed to the team losing many games they should have won (when Rasheed, Bonzi, Jeff, Damon, Nick, Derek and Shareef WERE here, BTW), which incidentally contributed to the "tearing down" of the Blazers roster you so loved and admired.



> I'm not being contrarian. I'm being realistic.


That may be, but you're also projecting your anger at management onto everyone else.



> I don't begrudge people being optimistic and thinking that everything the team does is going to pay off, that every player should be capable of much more than they're currently doing, and that there's some sort of inevitability of Portland's return to glory just because it's the Blazers.
> 
> I don't agree with those things, though, and I'm not going to bite my tongue when the assertions are clearly erroneous to me.


So Nate trying to get his players to put in the effort he expects to see from them is a bad thing?



> This article this morning is EXACTLY what I predicted just a couple of weeks ago: the team allegedly not working hard and the players taking heat for it.


Nate felt his players were not putting in the effort he expected to see from them. EFFORT, Ed. Even the least talented player in the world can give maximum EFFORT. Look at Mark Madsen. It's got nothing to do with not having a single player who can shoot 80% from half-court.



> Management and the coaching staff can do this--whether it's justified or not--at little cost to themselves in the short term. While it might end up alienating some of the key young players, it takes heat off of them for putting together a team that cannot win for the foreseeable future.


On the other hand, maybe they CAN win more than you think if they give maximum effort during practice and games.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I don't like everything the team has done either, but at this point...As a FAN I am watching and rooting for the good things...Miles' performance last night was one of those......


And Nate ripping his players for not giving the effort he expects to see from them is another.

Nate knows he doesn't have any future Hall-Of-Famers to work with. But he still expects each and every one of the players he DOES have to work their tail off.

Ed is just upset that Nate doesn't have any future Hall-Of-Famers to work with.

That's really it in a nutshell.

PBF


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> This article this morning is EXACTLY what I predicted just a couple of weeks ago: the team allegedly not working hard and the players taking heat for it. Management and the coaching staff can do this--whether it's justified or not--at little cost to themselves in the short term. While it might end up alienating some of the key young players, it takes heat off of them for putting together a team that cannot win for the foreseeable future.
> 
> Ed O.


However, the team _did_ play hard and well enough to come close to beating a decent Wolves team on the road - this, in their first regular season effort under Nate.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the team will resond to Nate's approach to work ethic, fundamentals, and overall team play/attitude sooner than later.

I also believe it's *way* too early to throw laurels or darts at this current collection. Darius had the correct approach. Rubes? Well........


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

tlong said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we *lose * to Minnesota?


I think Talkhard was referring to the pre-season win over Toronto, tlong. I could be wrong about that, however.

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed....

If you look for failure you will find it, if you look for success you will find it.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> ...


Ridiculous.

It IS the players fault if they aren't working hard. Nate is 100% right on themoney on this one. They aren't talented enough to flip a switch and play well. The sooner these guys learn that, the sooner they'll actually start winning some games by giving their full effort for 48 minutes.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Just think if there were an Ed for every NBA team locked in a room empirically debating for supremecy. I'd PPV that one. :yes:

(j/k, Ed. :clown: )


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

the team is asking it's players to be held accountable for their own actions...asking it's players to play 100%...asking the players to play within a set of plays..demanding that the players are in shape, give it their all from the get go...

yah, I hate what the team is doing.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Quit being a hater Ed...I know you are not satisfied with what current Blazer mgmt has done...but sooner or later you better except the team for what it is, or just step away from watching\writing about them...b\c you currently sound like a broken record...your opinion has been duly noted...NUMEROUS times now...focus on something else....Your apparent glee of "I told you so's" after Blazer losses\etc... Is very UN-fan like.....


Amen and amen . . .



> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we lose to Minnesota?


My mistake. I meant to say a very impressive "performance" but then had a Freudian slip.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Well I think blaming the players is appropriate...IMO watching the game, had the team executed better on offense against the zone, they would have won the game. In general I thought that even theough the game was close execution was a big difference.

I find it a bit ironic that it says in the article that Nate is trying to dispell the notion that they are expected to lose....Ed on the other hand definately expectes them to lose and Nates approach negates that theory


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Ed....
> 
> If you look for failure you will find it, if you look for success you will find it.



That glass is clearly mostly empty.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

tlong said:


> That glass is clearly mostly empty.


Yeah, but what you can't see from the picture is that the liquid that's in it is Everclear...

...and that the person who drank slightly more than half the glass is rolling around on the floor wracked with spasms of laughter.



PBF


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> That glass is clearly mostly empty.


Here's a picture of Nate.....making up the difference.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Am I the only one who doesn't think this is much of an "eruption"? It sounds like fairly standard coach speak to try and get the players to work harder.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't think this is much of an "eruption"? It sounds like fairly standard coach speak to try and get the players to work harder.


I think when we're used to a lackidasical type atmosphere in practices, those who are used to it (and "prefer" it) are usually the loudest complainers when things change. 

This is no different.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> If you look for failure you will find it, if you look for success you will find it.


Or you can just look. And see success or failure based on what *is*, rather than what you *want*. This isn't, for me, some sort of "Hang in there, Kitty!" inspirational thing. The Blazers' success and failure is measured on how much enjoyment I get out of them, and looking at this team and its future simply isn't promising much enjoyment.

There's no truly objective opinions, and certainly not about basketball, but I find it amusing that people would think that I think that players walk on water or that I'm just being contrary.

I've been MORE than willing to criticize players in the past (CRob, Damon, NVE, Dixon). I've been MORE than willing to criticize media (nationally and locally) for shortchanging the team when I thought the team was better than the media did.

Similarly, I have views on the current team. I don't care if everyone on this board agrees with me or nobody does. I'm going to keep an open mind and reevaluate my views, of course, but I'm not going to look for small bright spots just because Nash and company have lowered expectations so far. And I'm not going to ignore years of Nate's coaching mediocrity in Seattle just because he's the Blazers' coach now.

Nash and Nate are smart men. They know more than I do about many things. But they're not infallible and I don't think that their histories indicate anything approaching guaranteed success... and I find it more likely that they will fail than that they will succeed.

Ed O.


----------



## blazerboy30 (Apr 30, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Give being right a break? No, thanks.
> 
> Ed O.



I'm confused........do you somehow think that you were the only one around here that knew / thought the blazers would be bad this year? 

Many of us knew it, and admitted it.....including myself. However, I don't feel the need to post in every thread with the "I told you so" attitude. The same is true for many other posters here. 

I have no idea, but maybe you are just overly proud of yourself for being right....... for once.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

This is funny, our columnist don't even understand true coaching and accountability due to so many years without it. In no way can I see Nate being out of line.

The quotes are quite interesting.
Patterson:
"He can't say that for everybody, because *I * know *I * came and practiced," veteran Ruben Patterson said. "But that's what he says; he's the coach. *I* ain't going to comment on the practices, but yeah, they're long . . . real long." 
R. Patterson 13:16 0- FG 2-4FT 0-RB 0-AS 0-ST 0-BL 2TO 3PF 2Pts

Dixon:
"I don't have a problem with it," Dixon said. "*Guys* have to work harder in his eyes. He wanted to build off yesterday, but he didn't feel *guys* were working as hard as they should. Hopefully, *guys* learn from it, because whatever he says is pretty much right." 
J. Dixon 26:38 5-14Fg 36% 1-5 3pt 20% 0-FT 6- rb 1-as 0-Bl 0st 1-TO 3-pf 11pts 

Miles:
"*We* are a young team, and young players don't know the tempo of practice and what practice really means," Miles said. "I guess coach wanted to work on stuff, get a lot in and *we* (fooled) around. Nobody was really sweating, *we* didn't work hard, *we* didn't take care of what *we* needed to take care of." 
D. Miles F 41:47 13-24 54% 6-8 FT 11 Rbs 5-As 5-St 3-Bl 3-To 2-Pf 32Pts 

Either this means that Darius, The Punisher, took the day off and is admitting fault as part of the team or Dixon and Patterson, who failed to effectively contribute, are distancing themselves from the back and pointing fingers. They could be read both ways.

I am happy to see Darius taking a Captain's role and stepping up as part of the team, but I also wonder what his practice ethic was like in this particular situation. Dixon is half way there and is just going along with it. Can't fault him for just sucking. Ruben is out the door already and isn't coming back. I am sure he is already watching other teams trying to figure out where he fits in.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

watch it ed, you might get banned from the forum. 

ooh wait, I'm not supposed to say that. :angel:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

blazerboy30 said:


> I'm confused........do you somehow think that you were the only one around here that knew / thought the blazers would be bad this year?


I don't know. Ask all of the people who have been arguing about it with me over it for the past two+ years.



> I have no idea, but maybe you are just overly proud of yourself for being right....... for once.


Check out the way this thread transpired, please. I didn't come in here with a "I told you so" attitude. I came in here with an opinion. I received the following feedback: 

"What a shocker. Ed O. thinks the team is bad."
"May I be blunt, Ed? Your contrarian act is getting very old."

Two posts about me, rather than about what I posted.

Some people acted more reasonably and addressed why I said. But when people comment on ME, then of course I'm going to say that I occasionally know what I'm talking about and that it's not just me playing a constant devil's advocate.

Maybe I should just stick to "Yeah! Give 'em hell, Nate!" or, "That loss was a step in the right direction!" I think that those two posts could be used in almost any thread and wouldn't garner any criticism.

Nah...

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> watch it ed, you might get banned from the forum.
> 
> ooh wait, I'm not supposed to say that. :angel:


Hehe. I don't think that I'll get banned any time soon, although one never knows.

It might get to the point where it's simply easier to leave than continuing to argue with the fan bois, though.

Ed O.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I just feel fortunate that my posts are *never * criticized.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I just feel fortunate that my posts are *never * criticized.


substance renders critcism. 

(Of course, I should talk. :laugh: )


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I just feel fortunate that my posts are *never * criticized.


Dude. You gotta step your game back up. With mixum out of the picture, I'm the next logical target and 'lo and behold I'm catching heat.

I need to tag out and let you carry the reality torch for a while, perhaps 

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Or you can just look. And see success or failure based on what *is*, rather than what you *want*. This isn't, for me, some sort of "Hang in there, Kitty!" inspirational thing. The Blazers' success and failure is measured on how much enjoyment I get out of them, and looking at this team and its future simply isn't promising much enjoyment.


Well to an extent what else can we do? We can choose to watch this team grow and enjoy their positives or we can grump about their shortcomings and what could have been. We all have the right to choose how we look at it. 



> There's no truly objective opinions, and certainly not about basketball, but I find it amusing that people would think that I think that players walk on water or that I'm just being contrary.
> 
> I've been MORE than willing to criticize players in the past (CRob, Damon, NVE, Dixon). I've been MORE than willing to criticize media (nationally and locally) for shortchanging the team when I thought the team was better than the media did.
> 
> ...


I think the thing is Ed in the last several months I haven't seen any praise from you about the team, and I think others feel that way too. I have found that sometimes people think they are non-biased actually carry anti-bias in other words, in their attemt to not be a homer or try and maintian a façade of being non-biased they actually ignore positives and focus on the negatives.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Dude. You gotta step your game back up. With mixum out of the picture, I'm the next logical target and 'lo and behold I'm catching heat.
> 
> I need to tag out and let you carry the reality torch for a while, perhaps
> 
> Ed O.



*But you are doing such a fine job!* :laugh: 

I will try to step up my game, but I haven't had time to post much lately/


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Ed....
> 
> If you look for failure you will find it, if you look for success you will find it.


didn't there use to be flowers in there?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I think the thing is Ed in the last several months I haven't seen any praise from you about the team, and I think others feel that way too. I have found that sometimes people think they are non-biased actually carry anti-bias in other words, in their attemt to not be a homer or try and maintian a façade of being non-biased they actually ignore positives and focus on the negatives.


What positives are there?

A nice draft day, but nothing since then that I'm that excited about. Dixon? Blake? Ick. Getting nothing for massive expired contracts on players that are going to help significantly better teams? Waiving DA, ending any chances of getting out from under his contract and forcing us to rely on downgrades Dixon and Charles Smith?

Nate is someone that I can see others getting excited about, but I've lived in Seattle with Nate as the coach and I've just never been impressed.

I give credit when I feel it's due, not when I feel it's time to be positive. Check my comments after the MN game... while I wasn't impressed by the team, I was impressed by Darius and Zach. I might not be a homer, but I'm not blind, either.

And I'd PREFER NOT TO REVISIT THIS IN EVERY THREAD. But people comment on why I'm not positive or why I don't trust Nash or why I just take a contrarian view... and I honestly don't feel that those comments are justified and I choose not to let them go unaddressed.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Dude. You gotta step your game back up. With mixum out of the picture, I'm the next logical target and 'lo and behold I'm catching heat.
> 
> I need to tag out and let you carry the reality torch for a while, perhaps
> 
> Ed O.


So your Reality check is by being the anti-homer?

Real non-biased there.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

ABM said:


> substance renders critcism.
> 
> (Of course, I should talk. :laugh: )


Agree

As much as I tire of hearing the same pesimism from certain posters, that is what keeps threads going. If everyone agrees, we just have twenty replies saying "way to go, Nate." Ed, you are correct in stating your opion and your history and personality shouldn't be the target of constant contraversy in response to your opinions. Opposing sides it what makes us solidify our own positions and makes us question how clear our thoughts are about a subject. On that thought, most every thread starts on way and eventually gets turned back to the same road about the current position of the Blazers and management decisions that put them there. It is inevitable.

I can't blame you for holding your position Ed, if you came in and praised the Blazers I would think hell froze over! J/K :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

does anyone else find the irony in the fact it's not me who's railing on ed?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Nice to see that Miles didn't make a smart *** remark to Nate that's a step.Good to see that Nate is holding his ground but i would have headachs if i was the coach.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> So your Reality check is by being the anti-homer?
> 
> Real non-biased there.


Homers are biased.

Being an anti-homer would make me, what? Relatively unbiased, as I see it.

Refusing to be a homer doesn't mean that one has to be looking at the negative in everything, although it might seem that way to a homer.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> does anyone else find the irony in the fact it's not me who's railing on ed?


We may have reached a détente, but I think that you are just charging your batteries, waiting until I'm worn down, and then you're going to come in for the coup de grâce.



Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> We may have reached a détente, but I think that you are just charging your batteries, waiting until I'm worn down, and then you're going to come in for the coup de grâce.
> 
> 
> 
> Ed O.


your big words mean nothing to me!!

actually, you are part right about the batteries. Ive been sick for about 9 days (and was gone for some time before that). So I just have no interest in arguing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What positives are there?
> 
> A nice draft day, but nothing since then that I'm that excited about. Dixon? Blake? Ick. Getting nothing for massive expired contracts on players that are going to help significantly better teams? Waiving DA, ending any chances of getting out from under his contract and forcing us to rely on downgrades Dixon and Charles Smith?
> 
> ...


Well then I think you and I probably are in more agreement than we might think, I just choose to enjoy the games.

I give up though becuause I can't talk a mountain out of being a mountain.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> What positives are there?
> 
> A nice draft day, but nothing since then that I'm that excited about. Dixon? Blake? Ick. Getting nothing for massive expired contracts on players that are going to help significantly better teams? Waiving DA, ending any chances of getting out from under his contract and forcing us to rely on downgrades Dixon and Charles Smith?


Ed, as you know, I'm in agreement with you about not liking the decision to go with a total youth movement. I don't think there's any reason this team could not have been rebuilt while remaining competetive. Letting DA walk while we get to pay him for 2 more years? Not a fan of that move. Dixon or Smith would have made a nice role player off the bench, but getting both of them was redundant and didn't address the need for a starting 2G while we wait for Webster to grow into those shoes. Blake? Why?

That said, I am a believer in the young talent that Nash has assembled. I do see hope for the future of this team in players like Webster, Zach, Miles, Outlaw, Telfair, Jack, etc. It's not going to happen over night, but 2-3 years down the road this team could be really good. 

I just hate the thought of how ugly the next couple of seasons could be and how easily that could have been avoided.

The biggest positive for me, and one that I know you vehemently disagree with me about, is the improvement in the character of the team. Rasheed and Bonzi no doubt would have made this team more competetive, but only at the price of a continued tarnished reputation to an organization that I happen to hold in pretty high esteem. I'm glad they're gone.



> Nate is someone that I can see others getting excited about, but I've lived in Seattle with Nate as the coach and I've just never been impressed.


Like most coaches, Nate lost when his team had bad talent and won when the talent level improved and was healthy. I think you're right that he has to be careful not to lose this team by being too much of a hard case, but overall, his insistance on doing things the right way is, IMO, a positive.



> And I'd PREFER NOT TO REVISIT THIS IN EVERY THREAD. But people comment on why I'm not positive or why I don't trust Nash or why I just take a contrarian view... and I honestly don't feel that those comments are justified and I choose not to let them go unaddressed.


Nobody expects you to be positive. Heck, we'd think you were on some mood-altering substance if you were optimistic.  That said, I think constructive criticism is a positive. Continually hammering home your disgruntlement with past moves, none of which can be undone, can grow to be a little wearying.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I just hate the thought of how ugly the next couple of seasons could be and how easily that could have been avoided.


how easily could it have been avoided.

btw, I don't disagree with the rest of your post (or most of it). This is just something we hear a lot, and I was wondering how it is that we couldve easily avoided it.


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Homers are biased.
> 
> Being an anti-homer would make me, what? Relatively unbiased, as I see it.
> 
> ...



Now, that's just a logical leap. To be fair, you're defining a "homer" with too few words. A correct assertation is that "Homers are biased *towards* the home team" -- making the "anti-homer" someone who is "biased *against* the home team." That seems to me to be the fair assumption. Either way, it is an extremely biased viewpoint.

BUT, I guess if we want to go TOTALLY opposite -- an "anti-homer" might be "A Non-Person who isn't not biased against the anti-home non-team" -- but in all honesty, i'm lost on that one. Anyone care to figure out if its positive or negative?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> The management? Not their fault that they assembled a team that's so bad.



Yeah, Nate should have spent practice telling the players that the management sucks.  What else is he going to tell the team?

Your post does seem to prove that you are just presenting an opposite opinion for its own sake. No one thinks that the coach is going to start criticizing management in front of the players. Even if a team is playing great, the coach is going to find things that the team isn't working hard enough on.

And comparing yourself to mixum... well that's a stretch but your argument here is not up to your own standards- so maybe you are becoming the new mixum. Your mentioning him also supports the theory that you are just trolling for arguments.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

stockfire said:


> Now, that's just a logical leap. To be fair, you're defining a "homer" with too few words. A correct assertation is that "Homers are biased *towards* the home team" -- making the "anti-homer" someone who is "biased *against* the home team." That seems to me to be the fair assumption. Either way, it is an extremely biased viewpoint.


Not to me.

Is the opposite of love hate or apathy? Is the opposite of misogyny "love of women" or "hatred of men"? It depends on the the axis for the original term that you're concerned with.

Love = strong emotion x positive
Hate = strong emotion x negative
Apathy = no emotion x (either)

I see homers as biased. The anti-homer, to me, is the opposite of biased. It's NOT taking views that are opposite the homers', because sometimes homers are right.

To relate it back to my little matrix above, and to introduce a term that some use (and which I think kmurph accused me of being earlier in the thread):

Homer = bias x positive
Hater = bias x negative
Anti-homer = no bias x (either)

Ed O.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

<IMG SRC="http://www.yourtvideas.com/images/shows/tn_homerangediable.jpg" BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER>
clearly the differences are obvious!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Your post does seem to prove that you are just presenting an opposite opinion for its own sake. No one thinks that the coach is going to start criticizing management in front of the players. Even if a team is playing great, the coach is going to find things that the team isn't working hard enough on.
> 
> And comparing yourself to mixum... well that's a stretch but your argument here is not up to your own standards- so maybe you are becoming the new mixum. Your mentioning him also supports the theory that you are just trolling for arguments.


Yes, that's it. I have decided, after over a decade of posting online about the Blazers, to become a troll.

That makes a ton of sense.

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Please. Ed's way too smart, well-spoken, and good looking to be a troll. I personally dislike just about everything he has to say, and would love simply to ignore him, but he's not a troll.

That said, Ed is a contrarian, and as such his posts can be some of the most annoying, rant-inducing pieces of work ever. But that's my cross to bear, because it's my voice inflection and facial expressions that I put on his words.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

No offense Ed but you don't strike me as your own ideal of apathy.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Yes, that's it. I have decided, after over a decade of posting online about the Blazers, to become a troll.
> 
> That makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hap said:


> how easily could it have been avoided.


I think the Blazers could have worked a deal for a couple of veterans in exchange for NVE's ending contract. While I've read and understand Nash's comments about why the decision was made to go with a full-on youth program, I just happen to disagree that was the best way to go.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Please. Ed's way too smart, well-spoken, and *good looking * to be a troll. I personally dislike just about everything he has to say, and would love simply to ignore him, but he's not a troll.
> 
> That said, Ed is a contrarian, and as such his posts can be some of the most annoying, rant-inducing pieces of work ever. But that's my cross to bear, because it's my voice inflection and facial expressions that I put on his words.



I do not agree with this.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> No offense Ed but you don't strike me as your own ideal of apathy.


Why would I be apathetic? I don't claim to be.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Some poster are just so predictable it makes me want to uke:


----------



## stockfire (Jul 17, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Not to me.
> 
> Is the opposite of love hate or apathy? Is the opposite of misogyny "love of women" or "hatred of men"? It depends on the the axis for the original term that you're concerned with.
> 
> ...



I would argue that the oppossite of misogyny would be more towards the "love of women," which is in line with my reasoning. We are changing the attitude in question, not the noun.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Yes, that's it. I have decided, after over a decade of posting online about the Blazers, to become a troll.
> 
> That makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Ed O.


Read your first post again:



> What a shocker. Already the blame game that the players not working hard is to fault.
> 
> The coach? Not his problem.
> 
> The management? Not their fault that they assembled a team that's so bad.


The thread is about Nate "erupting" in practice, telling his players that they aren't working hard enough.

Your argument (it seems) is that he shouldn't be blaming the players, but himself and management. In practice? You really think Nate should be doing that?

Oh, you didn't mean that with your post? You weren't trying to start an argument?

My bad then.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Why would I be apathetic? I don't claim to be.
> 
> Ed O.


Ooops Sorry, you definately aren't apatetic...I should have said Non-bias.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Yeah, hatred of men and hatred of women are not mutually exclusive.

By that token, anti-homer does not preclude bias x negative... it only includes [not(bias x positive)], so you could have [not(bias x positive)] and [is(bias x negative)] and still be anti-homer, but also pro-hater, since the two terms are not mutually exclusive... logically speaking.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I think the Blazers could have worked a deal for a couple of veterans in exchange for NVE's ending contract. While I've read and understand Nash's comments about why the decision was made to go with a full-on youth program, I just happen to disagree that was the best way to go.


I agree they could have. But for WHO tho? 

Because we fans think that A should've happened, or B was supposed to, doesn't mean that A or B would have happened because we think so.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

meh like it or not ed is pretty much on point - i know it hurts people to read it more than once but get over it fellas.. id rather take some realism over a 'Ha will be better than Yao Ming' or 'Telfair will be an allstar' thread anyday - UNLESS its actually realistic , neither of which currently are.

ed might be more negative and most of the rest are more positive - but when we have threads dedicated to best loses and not caring about losing, who is is closer to reality atm

keep doing yer thing ed


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Yes, that's it. I have decided, after over a decade of posting online about the Blazers, to become a troll.
> 
> That makes a ton of sense.
> 
> Ed O.


Ha! I knew it!!!

After all these years of BLT, Fanhome, and BBB.net...the truth is out!!!!!

Ed lives under a bridge!!!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> The thread is about Nate "erupting" in practice, telling his players that they aren't working hard enough.
> 
> Your argument (it seems) is that he shouldn't be blaming the players, but himself and management. In practice? You really think Nate should be doing that?
> 
> ...


I was definitely not trying to start an argument. And certainly not one about ME. But getting out of the "Blazers r00l" lockstep that seems to be developing in some posters around here opens me up for a lot of criticism (personal as well as about my opinion, it would seem).

It's my opinion, and has been for some weeks, that Nate and management know the team is going to be bad this year (duh) but they also know that the fans and the media aren't going to stand for it. So by pointing fingers at players for not working hard enough has a double benefit: it might instill a superior work ethic in some players, and it ALSO gives management and coaches an out by simply shrugging and saying, "We're not as successful as we could be because guys aren't working hard enough."

It doesn't mean that I don't think players should work hard, or that Nate shouldn't be serious about their effort. But a public dressing down seems to be more of a PR move than a legit motivator.

Ed O.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

People who seeks attention and praise do it in many different ways, as long as you're THE point of a discussion either positive or negative you're always in demand, right? Ed O knows this and that's why he's on this board. 

Ed would always rather be RIGHT than objective. Much like Mixum posters only feed his displaced need for exceptance by trying to prove he's wrong. 

It's a waste of time, this board is about hoops and the love of the game and our Blazers. Ed is not about any of those so why banter with him?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> People who seeks attention and praise do it in many different ways, as long as you're THE point of a discussion either positive or negative you're always in demand, right? Ed O knows this and that's why he's on this board.
> 
> Ed would always rather be RIGHT than objective. Much like Mixum posters only feed his displaced need for exceptance by trying to prove he's wrong.
> 
> It's a waste of time, this board is about hoops and the love of the game and our Blazers. Ed is not about any of those so why banter with him?


Because it's fun..if we all agreed all the time it would be drab.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK Ed one last question pertaining to another thread...You said you had low expectations for the game on Wednesday. I am curious what those expectations were.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I think to often with Ed O's posts it turns into a topic of I'm right, your wrong, and basketball to often in no longer even being discussed.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> OK Ed one last question pertaining to another thread...You said you had low expectations for the game on Wednesday. I am curious what those expectations were.


A loss. I don't think that slicing things up more than that is really necessary... I guess I could have thought it would be a blowout, but I didn't think it necessarily would be.

The Wolves were never in any real trouble on Wednesday. The Blazers started off well and Miles had some nice plays down the stretch, but it would have been shocking if Portland had stolen the game at the end (or if MN had given it away).

I wasn't disappointed in the way Portland played in MN--on the contrary, I think that Miles and Zach were varying degrees of good and that Joel and Jack were pretty decent, too--but I wasn't heartened or proud of them for not being worse than I'd expected.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sometimes, the more you guys rag on Ed, the more his opinion of him being the new mixum (in the sense of a target, tho not target) seems to be more true.

So, can we please stop accusing ed (or anyone) of not being a fan, or just being a troll?

For starters, he's not going to other parts of this web site, and making inciteful comments to fans of other teams. He's not sending outlandish PM's to people, of which are laughable at best. 

He, while sometimes argumentative, isn't anything remotely like that of former members of the board who have been banned (and were rightfully so). He can actually defend his position, and create a realistic base to his arguments. Unlike some, Ed actually doesn't always say that Nash is a jerk, and constantly remind us that Telfair was the wrong pick (or contradict himself in the process). 

Sure, Ed doesn't care about character, and (it would seem) only about winning..sure he likes to point that out...but that's not trolling. It can seem a little holier than thou, but I'm sure that the opposite stance comes off as holier than thou too.

So in other words..I know Ed O. Ed O is a friend of mine...comrades, Ed O is no mixum.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> I think to often with Ed O's posts it turns into a topic of I'm right, your wrong, and basketball to often in no longer even being discussed.


Yes you are definately right on on this one....

A discussion should never be done with the intention of talking another person into your frame of mind, only to express your own view.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I was definitely not trying to start an argument. And certainly not one about ME. But getting out of the "Blazers r00l" lockstep that seems to be developing in some posters around here opens me up for a lot of criticism (personal as well as about my opinion, it would seem).
> 
> 
> Ed O.


I think you're seeing tootie rolls again. 

"Blazers r00l?" Are you kidding me? Who exactly do you think is that kind of a fanboi? I look around and see varying degrees of 'we're going to suck' from 99% of the posters on this board. Some just have a slightly more positive outlook for the _future_. 

If you say that anyone who thinks that the team and organization is finally, possibly, taking a few unsteady steps toward righting the ship is 'lockstep' with the 'Blazers r00l' ideas...then I guess you might be right. Personally, I like some of our young prospects. I like that Nate McMillan lays into guys for not working hard. I like that he's not blaming management for giving him a young team to work with. I like that Darius Miles really seems to have reacted in a positive way to Nate's empowering him as a leader. I like that these guys will be expected to work for 48 minutes a night. I like that they will likely steal a few games here and there. 

And I still think you're reading too much into Nate's *****ing session. He got on some guys for being lazy. He didn't 'erupt' or whatever the headline was. He told them to work harder. Big deal.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> People who seeks attention and praise do it in many different ways, as long as you're THE point of a discussion either positive or negative you're always in demand, right? Ed O knows this and that's why he's on this board.


You don't know me. I'm not saying that in a cavalier way. You simply don't.

If you had a chance to get to know me even for 30 minutes, you'd see how wrong you were. You might not agree with me any more than you currently do, but I think you'd be a bit embarassed at how lightly you misjudged me.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> I think you're seeing tootie rolls again.
> 
> "Blazers r00l?" Are you kidding me? Who exactly do you think is that kind of a fanboi? I look around and see varying degrees of 'we're going to suck' from 99% of the posters on this board. Some just have a slightly more positive outlook for the _future_.


How many threads were dedicated to how well the Blazers played in their loss? At least two.

How many times have I been attacked for disagreeing with being happy about the loss? I've lost count.

How many people have compared me to mixum, mere weeks after we were assured that the reason he was banned was because of his tone, his inability to carry on a conversation, and his unwillingness to consider new information? It's happened a lot. In fairness, it's not by the people who made the decision to 86 mixum, but it appears to be coming from some of the people that complained about mixum in the first place.

I'm not saying that it's me (and tlong, perhaps) against the rest of the board... I think that there are counters to almost everything I say, and I think that some of you nail almost all of them. But some people seem to be having a knee-jerk reaction to anything short of optimism about the team.



> And I still think you're reading too much into Nate's *****ing session. He got on some guys for being lazy. He didn't 'erupt' or whatever the headline was. He told them to work harder. Big deal.


We'll see. You might be right. I took heat when I said that this team wasn't going to be particularly hard working, and then people said I was premature when I predicted that the team's coaches and management were going to complain about a lack of effort.

And I still could be totally wrong on both fronts. 

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BlayZa said:


> meh like it or not ed is pretty much on point


In THIS thread, Ed's original response was most definately NOT on point. Nate was ripping the players we have right now for not giving the kind of effort he expected them to give. That was the topic and point of this thread.

Ed, however, brought in the whole anti-managment schlock. As he always does. And THAT has absolutely nothing at all do to with the players we have right now not giving Nate the effort he wants to see from them.

I don't have a problem with Ed feeling the way he does about management and the decisions they've made. That's his opinion, and like everyone else here he is entitled to it. What I have a problem with is Ed's _action_ of bringing the anti-management crusade into each and every discussion here whether it has anything to do with management or not (as in this case).

Ed, I think we all understand how you (and tlong) feel about management and the moves they have made in recent years. (On the side, I believe many some here actually agree with you - some in whole, some in part, some on a point-by-point basis - as I do.) But do you _really_ need to bring it into every single thread? I guess what I'm asking is if it's too much to ask of you to be a little more selective about the threads in which you decide to "go there"? Hell, start a "Ed's Ongoing Tirade Against Blazers Mis-Management" thread and I will be the first to nominate it for stickiness. I just think you would get your message out more effectively using the "sniper" approach vs. the "shotgun" approach, if you take my meaning.

But insinuating that you are being targeted by the flamethrowers simply because mixum is no longer around is insulting. Mixum was a deliberate baiter. You're just opinionated in a different direction than most. But if you're going to go ahead and post stuff that you KNOW is going to generate that kind of response, then you really shouldn't be too surprised/offended when others react to it.

PBF


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> In THIS thread, Ed's original response was most definately NOT on point. Nate was ripping the players we have right now for not giving the kind of effort he expected them to give. That was the topic and point of this thread.
> 
> Ed, however, brought in the whole anti-managment schlock. As he always does. And THAT has absolutely nothing at all do to with the players we have right now not giving Nate the effort he wants to see from them.


Sorry, but you're wrong IMO. His reported diatribe against the team is entirely consistent with the PR strategy that I've thought the franchise would pursue.

You might think that strategy doesn't exist, but I'd love to hear arguments rather than a "Let's put all them negative thoughts into a sticky ghetto so we can get back on with the love fest" attitude.

Ed O.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Ed, your defense of all of your actions and your banter is your dance. Nothing in your posts reveal a person who's not in need of massive approval.

Re- read your own posts. You're never wrong, always trying to one up another poster,and always on the borderline of being rude to others points of views. That is you!

To say you are different in person would mean what? This board is an alter ego place for you to be the "all know it guy" that you present here?

Whatever!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> How many threads were dedicated to how well the Blazers played in their loss? At least two.


Some quotes from one of those threads.



> I figured it would be a 20 point blow out. So in that respect, I was impressed.
> 
> I'm proud of the effort; and I'm allowed, since I'm a fan and not a coach or player, to take a moral victory from this.
> 
> ...


I don't read much of that as 'Blazers r00l' 

They played okay for a bunch of young guys. There's something to build on. Maybe things won't be so bad after all. That's all people were saying.



Ed O said:


> We'll see. You might be right. I took heat when I said that this team wasn't going to be particularly hard working, and then people said I was premature when I predicted that the team's coaches and management were going to complain about a lack of effort.
> 
> And I still could be totally wrong on both fronts.
> 
> Ed O.


That's why I don't get why you'd basically call Nate's tongue lashing a case of trying to cover his own *** for when the team performs poorly. 

Obviously, Nate knows a lot more than you, I or anyone else on this board about the character and makeup of this team. He knew he'd have difficulty motivating this team to work hard....but that's what he's trying to do. I think this is purely a positive thing. He is blaming the players...because they're the only ones who CAN take the blame for whether or not they work hard.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hap said:


> I agree they could have. But for WHO tho?
> 
> Because we fans think that A should've happened, or B was supposed to, doesn't mean that A or B would have happened because we think so.


Jeez, Hap, I'm enjoying the Ed roast too much to get into specifics. :yes: 

One thought certainly would have been NVE & filler for Michael Finley. Dallas ended up just waiving him to save lottery tax. They would have taken NVE's ending contract in a heartbeat. Finley, Smith, & Webster would have been a much more appealing backcourt than Smith, Dixon, Webster. 

Water under the bridge at this point, though.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Jeez, Hap, I'm enjoying the Ed roast too much to get into specifics. :yes:
> 
> One thought certainly would have been NVE & filler for Michael Finley. Dallas ended up just waiving him to save lottery tax. They would have taken NVE's ending contract in a heartbeat. Finley, Smith, & Webster would have been a much more appealing backcourt than Smith, Dixon, Webster.
> 
> Water under the bridge at this point, though.


Have you seen Finley's contract? Two more years after this year at 17 and 18 million per. 

And he's aging in dog years too.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Ed, your defense of all of your actions and your banter is your dance. Nothing in your posts reveal a person who's not in need of massive approval.
> 
> Re- read your own posts. You're never wrong, always trying to one up another poster,and always on the borderline of being rude to others points of views. That is you!
> 
> ...


Ed's posts are fairly consistent with what I would expect from an attorney. They have nothing to do with a need for "approval." If he wanted approval I believe he would paint the Blazers in a more positive light. He merely states his opinion on matters and then cites tangible evidence to support his opinion.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

I haven't read anywhere on this thread where Ed O attacked/insult anyone. On the other, I have seen people accused Ed O of being rude/insulting being just that. I have been lurking this site for a long time. It seems to me some of the posters here doesn't tolerate negativity regarding the Blazers very well, no matter how realistic the negatives are. 

I shared a lot of Ed O's criticism towards Blazers management. I still am a big fan, and I am actually excited about some of our young players, but I don't trust Nash heading this franchise back to its winning way.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Foulzilla said:


> Am I the only one who doesn't think this is much of an "eruption"? It sounds like fairly standard coach speak to try and get the players to work harder.


There it is folks. Quick has been here for Dunleavey and Mo... What he has been seeing from Nate is EXTREMELY unfamiliar to him. Thus, he is probably making more of an emphasis on this situation then warrented. All evidence points to this conclusion. 

Nate calling out the players and letting them know, in no uncertain terms, they need to play hard is...well.....brilliant yet should be expected. Look, if Darius is not tuning out Nate, I have no qualms the other guys will get into his system and start listening...or be on the next boat out of town!

Hip-Hip-Horray for NATE!! Nate for Prez!! :cheers:


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Sorry, but you're wrong IMO. His reported diatribe against the team is entirely consistent with the PR strategy that I've thought the franchise would pursue.


But that doesn't mean Nate's tirade is in any way a calculated piece of the "master plan".



> You might think that strategy doesn't exist, but I'd love to hear arguments rather than a "Let's put all them negative thoughts into a sticky ghetto so we can get back on with the love fest" attitude.


Well one argument that could be made is that it's WAY too early in the season for Nate or Management to be doing any finger-pointing. If that is what Nate was doing, at the behest of Management (as you imply), then it would HAVE to be in response to fan & media pressure / disappointment with the state of the team. Wouldn't it? Otherwise, why else do it? But I haven't seen / heard that the dissenting voices (and yes there are a few, of which you are one) have grown numerous / loud enough yet to prompt that kind of reaction from Management. Because judging just from the posts on this forum and from the talking I do with friends, family, and co-workers, I believe the dissenting voices are currently in the vast minority.

And my suggestion about you being a bit more selective about "going there" was actually aimed at helping you keep people tuned into your message (since you so obviously want to get it out there). It wasn't intended to tuck you away into some "sticky ghetto" so the rest of us can "get back on with the love fest". You're WAY off base with that accusation.

PBF


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Fork said:


> Have you seen Finley's contract? Two more years after this year at 17 and 18 million per.
> 
> And he's aging in dog years too.


If you want to get into specifics, I would have off-loaded Ruben along with NVE's contract to make the deal. That then makes it only about a $10 mil addition to our salary. I wouldn't have taken on Dixon or Blake's contract, thereby saving about $5mil more. It's not that big of a difference after those adjustments. I couldn't care less that Finley's getting older. I'd just want one good season out of him a a starter while Webster gets his rookie year out of the way. After that, he could move to the bench for his final year.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Atleast I know now that when I'm trying to get intouch with my attorney he's probalby posting for the 10OOOth time on an anonymous basketball board at $350 an hour. :cheers: 

Why did I ever go into medicine? That's right, to play golf! :clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> And my suggestion about you being a bit more selective about "going there" was actually aimed at helping you keep people tuned into your message (since you so obviously want to get it out there). It wasn't intended to tuck you away into some "sticky ghetto" so the rest of us can "get back on with the love fest". You're WAY off base with that accusation.


Unreserved apologies, PBF. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your statement in such a meanspirited way.

I'm really not concerned, though, with getting my message out. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and even if some people are somehow convinced, I doubt it'll be Paul Allen 

Ed O.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

On a young team like this, I think it's good to have a disciplinarian as a coaxch. As our players mature, I'm not sure if this will continue to work. Nate has a 5-year contract as head coach here. Hopefully, as our team grow and gets better, Nate can use other motivational tactics. Otherwise, I'm afraid Nate won't last until the end of his contract.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Then is it that you like repeating yourself? Or maybe that you forget, and are actually just having the same opinion over and over as if it were fresh each time? Because if you don't have an agenda with your message, why be so vigilant about expressing it in so many threads, when each post is merely a new angle on the same core idea? Wouldn't a single "This is What Ed Thinks" thread be a more effecient use of your time?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

YardApe said:


> People who seeks attention and praise do it in many different ways, as long as you're THE point of a discussion either positive or negative you're always in demand, right? Ed O knows this and that's why he's on this board.
> 
> Ed would always rather be RIGHT than objective. Much like Mixum posters only feed his displaced need for exceptance by trying to prove he's wrong.
> 
> It's a waste of time, this board is about hoops and the love of the game and our Blazers. Ed is not about any of those so why banter with him?


You mean acc not ex.
Let's see EdO is all about the hoops. EdO loves the game. EdO is a Blazer fan. How can you support a position that he is not about any of those? Seems to me you went out on a limb in order to personally attack - a thin rotten limb - in a storm.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

YardApe said:


> Atleast I know now that when I'm trying to get intouch with my attorney he's probalby posting for the 10OOOth time on an anonymous basketball board at $350 an hour. :cheers:


Personal attacks never help your arguement. I suggest trying a different route.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Unreserved apologies, PBF. I didn't mean to mischaracterize your statement in such a meanspirited way.
> 
> I'm really not concerned, though, with getting my message out. I'm not trying to convince anyone, and even if some people are somehow convinced, I doubt it'll be Paul Allen
> 
> Ed O.


Apologies accepted, Ed. Believe it or not, I'm a big fan of dissenting opinions. It's kinda what makes this country so great.

But I do believe you want your opinions to be heard. We all do. It's why we're here. One big difference between you and mixum is that your opinions are passionately yours. Another is that you stick around to defend them.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Jeez, Hap, I'm enjoying the Ed roast too much to get into specifics. :yes:
> 
> One thought certainly would have been NVE & filler for Michael Finley. Dallas ended up just waiving him to save lottery tax. They would have taken NVE's ending contract in a heartbeat. Finley, Smith, & Webster would have been a much more appealing backcourt than Smith, Dixon, Webster.
> 
> Water under the bridge at this point, though.


we don't know if the Mavs would've wanted to do that trade, and on top of that, do we really want to be paying Finley that much money for the little improvement it'd cause?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Then is it that you like repeating yourself? Or maybe that you forget, and are actually just having the same opinion over and over as if it were fresh each time? Because if you don't have an agenda with your message, why be so vigilant about expressing it in so many threads, when each post is merely a new angle on the same core idea? Wouldn't a single "This is What Ed Thinks" thread be a more effecient use of your time?


Because new things happen.

This thread happened because Nate chewed out his team in front of observers.

Did I start an "expect Blazers players to be criticized for lack of effort" thread? No. I waited until something happened that was right in line with my expectations and then posted there.

And what other threads has this spilled into? I've posted in the following threads this week:

* Nate erupts in practice.....
November wins???
Who will step up and be the Blazers 3rd scorer? 
* If You Want a Youth Movement... 
Huge news re: Joel Przybilla 
* Most impressive loss ever? 
Umm.. what was that about Darius? 
Darius talking big 
It's like Damon, NVE and Derek never left 
Semi-OT: A Legal Question, I suppose 
* I don't care that we lost... 
I think Jack just took Telfair's job 
Poll: Darius Miles' nickname 
* Comparison... 
hypothetical trade idea involving telfair 
TJ Ford or Sebastian Telfair? 
OT: SAR has brought his losing style of basketball... 
JR Smith or MArtell Webster 
OT: Tisdale 
* 5 years 'til we make the playoffs? 
Ruben's Frankness Speaks Volumes 
Sportsline Preview: Northwest Division 
Oh, Baby! Season is finally here . . . 
OT: Sorry to ask... but I need reminding 
Major Announcement Tomorrow?..... 
Khryapa, Monia, and Ha start season "inactive" 
2005 - 2006 Blazer Predictions 
Blazers coach and star engaged in test of wills 

I added an asterisk to any thread that I criticized the management. You can add one more if you consider my convo with Hap about headbands in that vein... I do not.

So 28 threads, 6 of which I discussed management (at least two of which are focused on the topic from their inception, IMO).

That's being "vigilant" about my message? Give me a break.

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

It's a little counter-intuitive, because you have on one end:

Awful team (great draft position, nobody shows up)

and on the other:

Playoff team (increased revenues, mediocre draft position)

But in between, you have:

Bad Team (nobody shows up, good draft position)
Lousy Team (nobody shows up, okay draft position)
Mediocre Team (a few people show up, iffy draft position)

Getting Finley would have brought us from Awful to Lousy, but only getting to Playoff would make it worth the effort to get him. No one player can help us go from Awful (where we have a great chance of getting better through the draft) to Playoff (where free agents actually want to show up), and no combination of players we could have acquired were a lock to get us there. So instead, management said "stay bad, maybe awful, get better draft picks and roll the dice with them."

Not an awesomely fantastic business plan, but at least we won't miss the playoffs *and* have the 12th pick in the draft instead of the 1st or 2nd. :eek8:


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Hi everyone, I'm Scout.. :wave: 

It's a beatiful day here in the Phoenix area, it's Friday, and our Blazers are playing tonight.. World peace will not be solved over night, nor will any of the issues with the Blazers organization. Love your fellow Blazer fan and have a great weekend.. 

:mob: 

I think I'm going to watch the game tonight and just enjoy everything..


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> Hi everyone, I'm Scout.. :wave:
> 
> It's a beatiful day here in the Phoenix area, it's Friday, and our Blazers are playing tonight.. World peace will not be solved over night, nor will any of the issues with the Blazers organization. Love your fellow Blazer fan and have a great weekend..
> 
> ...



wait just a cotton picking minute....world peace won't be solved over night?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Hap said:


> we don't know if the Mavs would've wanted to do that trade, and on top of that, do we really want to be paying Finley that much money for the little improvement it'd cause?


Anybody besides me think this hypothetical trade discussion hiding in the midst of the Ed debate is a little amusing?

Look, Hap, you asked for a "for instance". I gave you one off the top of my head that seems like it would have had a reasonable chance of going down. Of course we don't know for sure if the Mavs would have made the trade. If I'm a betting man though, I think that it's pretty darn likely that they would have relished the thought of not only saving luxury tax dollars, but dropping the $17 mil they're paying Finley to play for another team in their division in exchange for $7 mil to Ruben. Simple math says there's a pretty good chance of that happening. Would I pay a net $5 mil a year more to be starting Finley over Smith this year? Yeah. I think I would.

Now, back to Ed...

Boy, you sure are one negative guy, Ed. Man, you make me sooooo angry sometimes. Jeez, maybe I could just ignore your posts if they bug me that much. Hey, there's an idea.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> Hi everyone, I'm Scout.. :wave:
> 
> It's a beatiful day here in the Phoenix area, it's Friday, and our Blazers are playing tonight.. World peace will not be solved over night, nor will any of the issues with the Blazers organization. Love your fellow Blazer fan and have a great weekend..
> 
> ...


(Quick note to self: Add Scout to the list of people who have ticked me off on the board today.)

Nice day, schmice day. It's a freaking deluge here in the soggy Northwest, Scout. Remind me again...what does the sun look like?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Anybody besides me think this hypothetical trade discussion hiding in the midst of the Ed debate is a little amusing?


ed debate? what ed debate? 


> Look, Hap, you asked for a "for instance". I gave you one off the top of my head that seems like it would have had a reasonable chance of going down. Of course we don't know for sure if the Mavs would have made the trade. If I'm a betting man though, I think that it's pretty darn likely that they would have relished the thought of not only saving luxury tax dollars, but dropping the $17 mil they're paying Finley to play for another team in their division in exchange for $7 mil to Ruben. Simple math says there's a pretty good chance of that happening. Would I pay a net $5 mil a year more to be starting Finley over Smith this year? Yeah. I think I would.


i think if the mavs were willing to trade Finley for DA and NVE (if that'd work) I would've done it..but i dont think it would've worked. They'd have to add in someone else.

I just don't know if it'd be something the mavs would've contemplated. Who knows tho.



> Now, back to Ed...
> 
> Boy, you sure are one negative guy, Ed. Man, you make me sooooo angry sometimes. Jeez, maybe I could just ignore your posts if they bug me that much. Hey, there's an idea.


its funny you mention ignore...*plonk*


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Ed O said:


> So 28 threads, 6 of which I discussed management (at least two of which are focused on the topic from their inception, IMO).
> 
> That's being "vigilant" about my message? Give me a break.
> 
> Ed O.


I'll just put it this way:

You know that guy who has his favorite Vegas story? The one about how he was with the two strippers in the bar, and then the police raided the place and he spilled his beer on the biker and a huge fist fight broke out? You know, that kind of story that's interesting the first few times, funny, always with a new little wrinkle to it that has either been fabricated or remembered?

Now imagine if that guy told that story at parties, 25% of the time. Every fourth conversation, he says, "Well I was in Vegas this one time, and..." He finds new ways to integrate his story into conversations, to make it relavent and topical. But it's the same story. And people who have heard the story more than four or five times, are eventually going to say "Man, you tell that story every time!" or walk away. But even when they hear him start in on that story from across the room, there's cringes, because it always starts the same. "Well, I was in Vegas this one time..."

I belive the allegory has merit in the current context. Sorry Ed, but 255 of the time is a lot when it's just finding new ways to express the same opinion. Yeah, the other 75% of the time, I enjoy your posts. But every time I see your name on a post, I play Russian Rouleete, wondering if I'm going to be pissed off or happy that I read your post.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> (Quick note to self: Add Scout to the list of people who have ticked me off on the board today.)
> 
> Nice day, schmice day. It's a freaking deluge here in the soggy Northwest, Scout. Remind me again...what does the sun look like?



hmm.. Let me look outside real quick, "Best Damn Eq Mgr"... Hard to describe.. Just a big blue sky.. some scattered soft puffy clouds, and a nice shinny yellow thingy in the sky.. If you'd like, I can take a picture and send it to ya? Soggy Northwest? Is that rain you speak of? That's a little scarce down here..


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Boy, you sure are one negative guy, Ed. Man, you make me sooooo angry sometimes. Jeez, maybe I could just ignore your posts if they bug me that much. Hey, there's an idea.


That's a great idea, why don't I just...










But luckily that's being worked on...

And there's the other snag; Ed is an intelligent guy, and 3/4 of the time has interesting things to say that I want to hear. It's just the game of Russian Roulette that sucks. I'm mostly frustrated because if he'd just lay off a bit, I'd have no problem at all. It's not like he's a troll -- they're easy to ignore, and don't usually make me mad. He's a smart guy with an opinion he's sticking to (which i can respect in and of itself) -- it's just I don't want to hear about it and I can't filter it out on its own. If I could split Ed into two users and ignore the one who posts about managemenr being a bunch of morons, I would be ecstatic. Because Ed has some great inpute in other areas.

So yeah, it's impulse control on my side. But it's not just me. And maybe if the ratio was 1-in-8 or 1-in-10, there wouldn't ben nearly the ruckus there is now.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

>



Now *that * is funny!


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

In fact I think I want to be a moderator now.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed has stepped down as Moderator to be a Maderator.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> In fact I think I want to be a moderator now.


If you want to I can make it happen.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Ed has stepped down as Moderator to be a Maderator.


You mean Matador. Ole!


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> That's a great idea, why don't I just...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is classic. If only we could do that with politicians I might be able to patch together a leader I could stomach.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

YardApe said:


> Atleast I know now that when I'm trying to get intouch with my attorney he's probalby posting for the 10OOOth time on an anonymous basketball board at $350 an hour. :cheers:
> 
> Why did I ever go into medicine? That's right, to play golf! :clap:


Ouch!.....


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> hmm.. Let me look outside real quick, "Best Damn Eq Mgr"... Hard to describe.. Just a big blue sky.. some scattered soft puffy clouds, and a nice shinny yellow thingy in the sky.. If you'd like, I can take a picture and send it to ya? Soggy Northwest? Is that rain you speak of? That's a little scarce down here..


Hmmm, another note to self: Remember to ask Scout next summer about which is hotter, Scottsdale or hell. 


Oregon is the perfect place to live....four months out of the year. It's those other 8 that can be a little tough to take. 

Oops. Time to go scrape the fungus off of my webfeet now.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Anybody besides me think this hypothetical trade discussion hiding in the midst of the Ed debate is a little amusing?
> 
> Look, Hap, you asked for a "for instance". I gave you one off the top of my head that seems like it would have had a reasonable chance of going down. Of course we don't know for sure if the Mavs would have made the trade. If I'm a betting man though, I think that it's pretty darn likely that they would have relished the thought of not only saving luxury tax dollars, but dropping the $17 mil they're paying Finley to play for another team in their division in exchange for $7 mil to Ruben. Simple math says there's a pretty good chance of that happening. Would I pay a net $5 mil a year more to be starting Finley over Smith this year? Yeah. I think I would.
> 
> ...




And that trade would give us maybe just a couple more wins and throw us down the draft board a couple spots, which decreases our chances of getting a franchise type player...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

For those of you outside (and In) Oregon

Sever Weather Alert


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I think it is the rain that gives the northwest it's character. Without the 8 months of drizzle we wouldn't have mossy green forests, diversity in flora and fauna, some of the most productive fungal diversity in the world, beautiful rivers, waterfalls, etc etc... I say, "Bring the rain".


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Agreed. Two of my best friends moved here from New Mexico *for* the rain!  :cheers:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> So 28 threads, 6 of which I discussed management (at least two of which are focused on the topic from their inception, IMO).
> 
> That's being "vigilant" about my message? Give me a break.
> 
> Ed O.


In my opinion, you can criticize management every time you want to...if you're right.

But the coach yelling at the players to work hard? That's a positive thing. It's certainly not a negative thing anyway. You needlessly skewed it to be a negative against management (and/or Nate himself) and you won't admit that that's what you did. 

Young teams often don't work hard. That doesn't mean it's the GM's fault for assembling a squad that's young or light on talent. (And I find plenty to fault with Nash, so I'm being an apologist.) It only becomes the coaches fault if he isn't able to correct the problem in a reasonable amount of time, but it's WAY too early to to assume that's the case.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> And that trade would give us maybe just a couple more wins and throw us down the draft board a couple spots, which decreases our chances of getting a franchise type player...


So, you're rooting for more losses to up our chances of getting a high draft pick? Sorry, I'm not ready to do that. A high draft pick can just as easily turn into an Olowokandi as a Shaq.

I think we saw on Wednesday that the Blazers have enough talent to be competetive most nights. Another veteran or two could put the team into contention for a playoff spot. Whether Finley was the best fit or not, I don't know. He's just one player that I think we could have acquired to help shore things up while the young guys learn the ropes.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

ABM said:


> However, the team _did_ Darius had the correct approach. Rubes? Well........


I disagree.

Quotes aside, we've all heard the talk and we know what it's worth.

Actions speak louder than words, and Ruben ALWAYS brings 100% whether it's a game OR a practice.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Wow, I saw that this thread had gone multiple pages and clicked it expecting an interesting basketball debate (interesting enough to have drawn so many posts) and I find another *****fest about a poster who doesn't live up to other people's standards of fandom.

Why don't you debate the basketball-related points and leave the character appraisals of the poster out of it? Honestly, I get a sense that people are sick of being unable to debate Ed particularly well, so they shift the debate to Ed himself, and decry how "he has to be right." Is he right? If he isn't, why not argue his points and prove him wrong? If he's right and you don't like it, grumble to yourself and move on to the next post.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> So, you're rooting for more losses to up our chances of getting a high draft pick? Sorry, I'm not ready to do that. A high draft pick can just as easily turn into an Olowokandi as a Shaq.


I will always root for the Blazers to win no matter what, but considering this year we most likely aren't going to make the playoffs.....I'd rather have the worst record than the 12th worst record in the league...

Duncan, Shaq, Lebron, Chris Webber, Allen Iverson are all franchise type players, its a fair trade off for every Duncan and Shaq theres a Olowakandi and Joe Smith.....its a trade off that at this point I'm willing to make....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Wow, I saw that this thread had gone multiple pages and clicked it expecting an interesting basketball debate (interesting enough to have drawn so many posts) and I find another *****fest about a poster who doesn't live up to other people's standards of fandom.
> 
> Why don't you debate the basketball-related points and leave the character appraisals of the poster out of it? Honestly, I get a sense that people are sick of being unable to debate Ed particularly well, so they shift the debate to Ed himself, and decry how "he has to be right." Is he right? If he isn't, why not argue his points and prove him wrong? If he's right and you don't like it, grumble to yourself and move on to the next post.


Leave it to Minstrel to wake us up with a real dose of reality. It's one thing if we are debating Eds Ideas but if we start getting into insulting Ed, or any one for that matter, then we have crossed the line.

Ed I apologize #1 for if I attacked you in any way (I may have I don't want to sift back and see if I did) and #2 That I allowed this thread to get to the point where others did attack you.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Gee I did not check the boars much today

anything happen around here?????? 

wow.. a 10 page thread




I will have to read it tongiht.. back to work for me..

People... let me back up those who have met Ed.... he is no troll!... believe Hap, Schilly, Myself... get to know him. He is passionate about our Blazers... nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Hmmm, another note to self: Remember to ask Scout next summer about which is hotter, Scottsdale or hell.



ah, but it's a dry heat, right? 

I'm guessing hell is hotter, but that's because I'm in my pool most of the time.. Does yours overflow from the rain? :biggrin:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> ah, but it's a dry heat, right?
> 
> I'm guessing hell is hotter, but that's because I'm in my pool most of the time.. Does yours overflow from the rain? :biggrin:


I don't know does your Fireplacee overflow in the heat?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> ah, but it's a dry heat, right?


So's the inside of your oven, but you wouldn't want to climb in, would you? 



> I'm guessing hell is hotter, but that's because I'm in my pool most of the time.. Does yours overflow from the rain? :biggrin:


The only pool in my backyard is my dog's water dish. 

Floating in the pool, hunh, well......*SKIN CANCER!!!!*


(And yes, I am seriously jealous. When are you inviting me down to dry out, Scout?)


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

This thread has such a bad vibe going on. Not a lot of positive energy, people.

Opinions are opinions. Ed has his, zags has his, Hap, Fork, Maris, Minstrel, Schilly, PBF, Scout and everyone else who's posted has theirs. No need to make any rash accusations or resort to name calling. I'd like to think that we're classier than that.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

This thread sucks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> This thread sucks. -----------------------------------------------------


it definetly jumped the shark.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Hap said:


> it definetly jumped the shark.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Wow, I saw that this thread had gone multiple pages and clicked it expecting an interesting basketball debate (interesting enough to have drawn so many posts) and I find another *****fest about a poster who doesn't live up to other people's standards of fandom.
> 
> Why don't you debate the basketball-related points and leave the character appraisals of the poster out of it? Honestly, I get a sense that people are sick of being unable to debate Ed particularly well, so they shift the debate to Ed himself, and decry how "he has to be right." Is he right? If he isn't, why not argue his points and prove him wrong? If he's right and you don't like it, grumble to yourself and move on to the next post.


amen


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> Gee I did not check the boars much today
> 
> anything happen around here??????
> 
> ...



I agree, I have met Ed O and value his opinion even if I don't think the same way as he does. He states his case, usually backs it up with facts. We all have different opinions on what the Blazers should or should have done.

I think that Ed is wrong on the whole Wells vs. Stackhouse thingy, but he is allowed his opinion as I am allowed mine.......which is right!


----------

