# Westbrook bound to be a Blazer?



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

It's just a feeling I have. He fits in with our core better than any of the other rumored PG's we have interest in (Hinrich, Calderon, ect.). The article in the Oregonian today furthered my suspicion that KP will trade up.



> _The Trail Blazers on Thursday held their most meaningful predraft workout this offseason featuring three players eager to fill the team's most glaring weakness: point guard.
> 
> A blend of athleticism (Russell Westbrook), quickness (Ty Lawson) and untapped potential (Rodrigue Beaubois) visited the Blazers' practice facility during a workout that general manager Kevin Pritchard called the most competitive yet.
> 
> *Its significance is summarized by one fact: For the first time this offseason, owner Paul Allen was in town to watch.* _





> _So good, in fact, that some mock drafts are projecting Westbrook as a top-10 pick. The Blazers acknowledged that he could be off the board by the time they select at No. 13.
> 
> But that doesn't necessarily rule out Westbrook -- or any other high draft prospect.
> 
> *"We will definitely move up in the draft if we feel like it's possible and that our player is there," Pritchard said.* _


Link


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Paul Allen is of course going to be there when _any_ player who is in our draft range is working out. I'm sure he was there when Gerald Green was working out in Portland as well. We didn't end up picking Green, and there's been many other players that he's watched that we haven't drafted as well.

Pritchard's quote doesn't really mean anything, its the same ol' same ol'.


Westbrook could be the guy, I wouldn't be disappointed if he was. But, I don't think that quote by Pritchard and the fact that Paul Allen was in town means were going to draft him.


----------



## JAFO (Jul 2, 2006)

I also would not be disappointed if the Blazers drafted Westbrook. But then again, I also would not be disappointed if the Blazers drafted Gordon, or Randolph, or Gallinari, or Batum, or went big and drafted McGee or R.Lopez. I am also not forgetting that Kopponnen is coming into PDX this weekend and the team already has his rights. I can't wait until Draft Day to see what KP does. The possibilities are many and varried. Besides, with all of the disinformation that is being floated and the other deliberate attempts to mislead opposing GM's into thinking the Blazers have an interest in a certain player, I wouldn't put it past Paul Allen to show up and observe a player that KP has absolutely no interest in drafting.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Koponen intrigues me as well, though he seems likely to be much more of an offensive player than a defensive player presuming he's ever good enough to crack the roster at all, which brings me back to Westbrook. Westbrook's greatest strength seems to be at the defensive end and with Roy and Fernandez likely to be getting lots of minutes over the next decade, I think I'd rather see the third (or perhaps fourth) guard in that rotation be really strong defensively. Blake, I'm thinking, is likely to stay a Blazer for awhile -- perhaps the rest of his career. He may well become the 3rd PG but this next season unless something more dramatic happens he's likely to still be starting. While he's not bad defensively, he's hardly a stopper. And Rodriguez... heh -- like Koponen, if he makes it in the league, it'll be more for offense than defense.

So while I'm not particularly attached to Westbrook, a strong defensive PG seems like a great addition and it seems like he's at least among the best and perhaps _the_ best of the available PGs.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

I was at least reassured to hear that Westbrook showed a shooting touch during the workout. He also seems like he could be a nice slasher and finisher at the rim, which we currently lack at PG. 

I like his defense, but this team still needs more scoring in the starting lineup as we were 27th in points this last season. If we end up drafting him, I hope we can swing a trade to upgrade scoring at the starting SF spot.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^Hey man, i agree with what you are saying, but remember Rudy and Greg (who will be a HUGE upgrade over Joel on offense) are comin' next year.

edit - 



> All three of Thursday's point guard prospects will likely need NBA seasoning, but the most coveted is Westbrook, a 6-foot-3 sophomore from UCLA.
> 
> He revealed superb athleticism, strong leaping ability, impressive defense and a better-than-expected shooting touch during a workout that Pritchard praised. The knock on Westbrook has been shooting, but he awed the Blazers during three-point shooting drills by making 36 of 50 shots (72 percent).


That is the Westbrook part of the article, if anyone is lazy to click on it.

*Please only quote small portions of articles, There are copyright laws and such. Thanks!*

And damn, it seems like Lawson really hurt himself with that Alcohol charge. I just can't believe he did that...

It was interesting when KP said he is willing to develop the PG, and knows that the first year will be a struggle.



> "If the guy is going to be a good player, he's going to be a good player," he said. "Developing is hard. We've gone through a lot of developing, but I think now that we've got Brandon (Roy) and LaMarcus (Aldridge) kind of taking it to another level, they can become that solidifying force in the locker room.
> 
> "Rookie point guards in this league tend to struggle. Even the guys who have had huge success, the Chris Pauls and Deron Williams . . . had to go through some bumps and bruises. The guys we're looking at may take some time."


I think that was an interesting bit in the article. I didn't think it was like that.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I've learned to trust in Pritchard. No matter who it is... if we get the guy we want I think he will exceed my expectations. PGs seem like a gamble and we do already have 10,000 or so mediocre ones already... but whatever they do... I am onboard.

Honestly... Steve Blake played great for us last year... I am not sure why he doesn't get any respect. He could lead a playoff team. He personally turned some games around for us when he had to, and was scrappy when everyone else looked asleep. I am fine with him starting next year if it comes to that.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Totally agree Paxil. Steve Blake is a great PG for this team.

Kinda why i like the idea of bringing in a rookie to learn behind Blake for a year or 2 (while Blake is cool, he is 27).


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

I definitely want Westbrook, he'd be great for the team.

Don't put too much stock in Paul Allen showing up. This
is the first one he could attend, he just got back from
Africa, according to reports.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

I have zero problem with a backcourt rotation of Roy/Fernandez/Blake/Westbrook. I realize this means Sergio gets garbage time (unless this pushes him to work on his weaknesses), and Jack has to be moved to make room, but I have no problem with Blake holding the fort and letting Westbrook work out the kinks. If we get him and he works out, I eventually see the rotation tightening up in a few years to a Roy/Westbrook/Fernandez lineup.

Hope springs eternal.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

MrJayremmie said:


> Totally agree Paxil. Steve Blake is a great PG for this team.
> 
> Kinda why i like the idea of bringing in a rookie to learn behind Blake for a year or 2 (while Blake is cool, he is 27).


I don't agree on Steve Blake. He has a difficult time bringing the ball up the court against pressure, and he also has a hard time stopping the ball on defense. Opposing PG got a lot of penetration on us last season. 

Westbrook could be a great fit for Portland if he lives up to his billings. Great defender, athletic, can take it to the rim.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Blazers will still look to acquire a veteran point guard, but if none are available then it is on to Westbrook or Gordon, book it.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Westbrook would be very nice


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Westbrook had the feeling of a Trail Blazer yesterday. Sign me up! His shooting can only improve with practice so I'm not worried about it.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

alext42083 said:


> Westbrook had the feeling of a Trail Blazer yesterday. Sign me up! His shooting can only improve with practice so I'm not worried about it.


Mostly I agree with you but somewhat more cautiously. After all, presumably Rodriguez has been practicing.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Mostly I agree with you but somewhat more cautiously. After all, presumably Rodriguez has been practicing.


It can't hurt to practice. I think Sergio was just plagued by inconsistent PT and lack of confidence, and it was only his second year in the league.
Westbrook showed some nice form and has a good base to work off of. He has an NBA body, and I think he can be an excellent defender, which we desperately need on the perimeter.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I wonder if POR is looking to trade up and draft Westbrook and then trade something like Raef, Outlaw, Jack and change\filler for Richard Jefferson...

I know that NJ has expressed interest in both Outlaw & Jack in the past and that they are trying to angle themselves to have cap space to go after Lebron...

That is my hunch as it stands today...It will likely change...


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I wonder if POR is looking to trade up and draft Westbrook and then trade something like Raef, Outlaw, Jack and change\filler for Richard Jefferson...
> 
> I know that NJ has expressed interest in both Outlaw & Jack in the past and that they are trying to angle themselves to have cap space to go after Lebron...
> 
> That is my hunch as it stands today...It will likely change...


If the Blazers trade numerous young peices for a vet like RJ, it signals that they are in a win-now mode, which pretty much contradicts the acquisition of Westbrook in my opinion. If we want to compete with the best of them now, we have to look to acquire a good vet PG, I just don't know that many are available. I'd rather pass on RJ and spend our assetts on the best point guard we can get. While I like Westbrook, he is far from an immediate impact. A guy like Eric Gordon would almost certainly contribute to this team sooner than Russell would.


----------



## ironcrotch (Apr 20, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> If the Blazers trade numerous young peices for a vet like RJ, it signals that they are in a win-now mode, which pretty much contradicts the acquisition of Westbrook in my opinion. If we want to compete with the best of them now, we have to look to acquire a good vet PG, *I just don't know that many are available.* I'd rather pass on RJ and *spend our assetts on the best point guard we can get. *While I like Westbrook, he is far from an immediate impact. A guy like Eric Gordon would almost certainly contribute to this team sooner than Russell would.


I think you answered your own question. Outside of drafting a PG, I don't think any vet PG's are available with out giving up way too much (ie. Hinrich). If we can work a deal where we trade up with NJ to take Westbrook at 10 (assuming he's available there) and get RJ at the same time, you do it. I don't mind letting Westbrook come off the bench while he learns the NBA game, Blake has been more than solid for us.

This may be a pipe dream, but I definitely can see this happening. It's pretty well known that the Nets want to make a run at Lebron when he's a free agent, since Jay-Z is part owner and they are very good friends. So dumping RJ for some value now and getting an expiring contract to open up capspace is integral to that plan.


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

Sambonius said:


> If the Blazers trade numerous young peices for a vet like RJ, it signals that they are in a win-now mode, which pretty much contradicts the acquisition of Westbrook in my opinion. If we want to compete with the best of them now, we have to look to acquire a good vet PG, I just don't know that many are available. I'd rather pass on RJ and spend our assetts on the best point guard we can get. While I like Westbrook, *he is far from an immediate impact. A guy like Eric Gordon would almost certainly contribute to this team sooner than Russell would.*


I agree to a point but I also disagree with the assessment that he wouldn't have an immediate impact; firstly he's comfortable (probably most so) playing the off-guard position, is a tremendous finisher, and by all accounts a really fundamentally sound defender (both man and team).

His handle has me a little concerned, but with Roy being our primary play-maker I can see more than one occasion where he'd be paired alongside him with the PG defensive assignment and Roy being the primary ball-handler.

Who knows, it's all just speculation at this point ... which is half the fun of draft-time.eace:


----------



## ironcrotch (Apr 20, 2006)

nikolokolus said:


> I agree to a point but I also disagree with the assessment that he wouldn't have an immediate impact; firstly he's comfortable (probably most so) playing the off-guard position, is a tremendous finisher, and by all accounts a really fundamentally sound defender (both man and team).
> 
> His handle has me a little concerned, but with Roy being our primary play-maker I can see more than one occasion where he'd be paired alongside him with the PG defensive assignment and Roy being the primary ball-handler.
> 
> Who knows, it's all just speculation at this point ... which is half the fun of draft-time.eace:


I think Westbrook is a possibility if you want to read into comments. 

http://www.columbian.com/sports/blazerBanter/#entry2

This was Russells comments:

Q: Given the feedback he's received from other teams, does he feel he'll be available at 13?

A: I don't know. The Blazers are trying to move up as well in the draft. But I don't know, we'll see. I haven't heard too much. I've just heard good things. But you never know on draft day.

I could swear that Roy said similar comments when he was asked if the Blazers were interested in him when he was working out.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> While I like Westbrook, he is far from an immediate impact. A guy like Eric Gordon would almost certainly contribute to this team sooner than Russell would.


That may not be true. It depends on the role you are looking at. Gordon's main skill is scoring. He would need to learn to fit into the Blazer's system and would need to have plays run for him to be efficient. Westbrook's main skill is defense. I think Westbrook could come in right away and play solid defense (more so than Gordon could on offense). Additionally, Westbrook could probably make a living off of putting back garbage and just hitting open jumpers--he wouldn't need plays run for him to be efficient. 

Not to mention, which player do you think Nate is more likely to leave in a a game:

1) A solid defender with limited opportunistic offense
2) An average defender who likes to score on plays run for him


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

The problem I have with Westbrook is that he's not a true PG. We need a PG that can push the ball and make good decisions. To take a 'tweener' and try and make him an NBA PG seems like a poor idea to me, despite the fact he's very athletic.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> The problem I have with Westbrook is that he's not a true PG. We need a PG that can push the ball and make good decisions. To take a 'tweener' and try and make him an NBA PG seems like a poor idea to me, despite the fact he's very athletic.


Did you have a chance to watch Westbrook play at UCLA? He is actually very good at pushing the ball and is an underrated passer. The only knocks on him are ball handling in the half court and outside shot (which he seems to have worked on). 

The interesting thing about Westbrook is that he will push the ball and if nobody else makes it down with him, he'll finish himself if he has the opening. Many times when Sergio is in the game he pushes the ball hard and find himself in a one-on-three where he just pulls the ball out and waits. 

You also have to look at Westbrook outside the UCLA half court system, which was painful to watch because of the design by the coaches. UCLA was a defensive team and offense was almost an afterthought. I think Love would have had numbers that were +30% if he would have played on another team. Similarly, I think Westbrook would have looked much better on offense under a different coach.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I saw him and his athleticism impressed me, but not his ability as an NBA PG.

Maybe I'm a poor judge of talent, but I'd much prefer a quicker and truer PG like Augustine or Lawson.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> I saw him and his athleticism impressed me, but not his ability as an NBA PG.
> 
> Maybe I'm a poor judge of talent, but I'd much prefer a quicker and truer PG like Augustine or Lawson.


The big question I have is how would that kind of PG fit with the team? No doubt you could plug them into the second unit, but playing along side Roy? I don't know. It would look very different than Blake and Jack last year. It might free up Roy more, or it might take Roy out of his flow. Remember that Roy excelled when he was given more PG responsibilities. That is why I think a solid defensive PG with reasonable ball handling would be the best. 

If you are looking to break more then outlet to Rudy next year. He throws a great lob and is plenty quick to run breaks when they arise.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> If the Blazers trade numerous young peices for a vet like RJ, it signals that they are in a win-now mode, which pretty much contradicts the acquisition of Westbrook in my opinion. If we want to compete with the best of them now, we have to look to acquire a good vet PG, I just don't know that many are available. I'd rather pass on RJ and spend our assetts on the best point guard we can get. While I like Westbrook, he is far from an immediate impact. A guy like Eric Gordon would almost certainly contribute to this team sooner than Russell would.


This is just my educated? hunch on what I think will happen...not what I want to happen....

I too, like Gordon more than Westbrook, but I would not be unhappy about adding Westbrook at all....

I am not a fan of Jefferson, but he is coming off his best season IMO and he is still rather young at 28...and he certainly would be a big upgrade over what we currently have....

PG Blake, Westbrook, Sergio
SG Roy, Fernandez
SF Jefferson, Webster, Jones (?)
PF Aldridge, Frye, McRoberts
C Oden, Pryzbilla

I think a potential Westbrook\Roy\Jefferson\Aldridge\Oden starting 5 would be pretty strong....with Blake\Fernandez\Webster\Frye and Pryz making a pretty strong bench....

I hope for better, but it wouldn't be necessarily bad by any stretch....


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

I think the Blazers are so high on Westbrook because of his defense. Too many times last year the Blazers allowed dribble penetration. He's ready to make an impact on defense in the NBA right now. 

Offensively he has a ways to go, but it's nothing drastic. He's not the decision maker like a Chris Paul, but with Roy on the team, a true decision maker out of your PG spot isn't absolutely necessary. What Westbrook will give you is a guy that can create his own shot and be a 1-man fastbreak that can finish very well at the basket.

The best comparison I can think of is Devin Harris.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

ironcrotch said:


> I think you answered your own question. Outside of drafting a PG, I don't think any vet PG's are available with out giving up way too much (ie. Hinrich). If we can work a deal where we trade up with NJ to take Westbrook at 10 (assuming he's available there) and get RJ at the same time, you do it. I don't mind letting Westbrook come off the bench while he learns the NBA game, Blake has been more than solid for us.
> 
> This may be a pipe dream, but I definitely can see this happening. It's pretty well known that the Nets want to make a run at Lebron when he's a free agent, since Jay-Z is part owner and they are very good friends. So dumping RJ for some value now and getting an expiring contract to open up capspace is integral to that plan.


I don't think Pritchard will pay that high of a price for Kirk when he can get a point who plays great defense and can't shoot in Russell. At least Westbrook is young enough to turn his shooting around, Kirk has been shooting erratic his whole career. So I agree in that respect. 

I can't see NJ doing a this type of deal but I could be wrong. Rod Thorn is one of the worst GMs to deal with. If we can give a combo of Outlaw, 13th, Raef, Jack, and someone else for a package that consists of RJ and Westbrook? Congrats to Pritchard for pulling that off, but I don't see how any team would be willing to make us that much stronger.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

nikolokolus said:


> I agree to a point but I also disagree with the assessment that he wouldn't have an immediate impact; firstly he's comfortable (probably most so) playing the off-guard position, is a tremendous finisher, and by all accounts a really fundamentally sound defender (both man and team).
> 
> His handle has me a little concerned, but with Roy being our primary play-maker I can see more than one occasion where he'd be paired alongside him with the PG defensive assignment and Roy being the primary ball-handler.
> 
> Who knows, it's all just speculation at this point ... which is half the fun of draft-time.eace:


I think it's going to take Westbrook some time, but hopefully less than what I imagine. That would be awesome if he could take over by all-star break but we'll see. I think anyone playing next to Roy is going to pretty much play the off-guard position. Get the ball up court and give it to Roy, or in this season's case, Oden or Aldridge as well. If Russell could play hard D, clean up loose balls, and hit uncontested jump shots, I would consider his season a success. I like him and hope he can continue to improve his jumper and handles.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

did you hear that westbrook smoked the shooting part of the work out yesterday.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Reep said:


> That may not be true. It depends on the role you are looking at. Gordon's main skill is scoring. He would need to learn to fit into the Blazer's system and would need to have plays run for him to be efficient. Westbrook's main skill is defense. I think Westbrook could come in right away and play solid defense (more so than Gordon could on offense). Additionally, Westbrook could probably make a living off of putting back garbage and just hitting open jumpers--he wouldn't need plays run for him to be efficient.
> 
> Not to mention, which player do you think Nate is more likely to leave in a a game:
> 
> ...



I wouldn't run many plays for either of them, regardless of who we got. Westbrook has shown an improvement in his shooting, that to me indicates that he can get a whole lot better. I don't know yet that Russell COULD hit open jumpers, if he can then I think his season would be considered a success, because I know he'll bring the defense. 

Trying to predict Nate's erratic substitution schemes is never fun. He sat Aldridge on the bench for most of his rookie season, then started the season after. Odd. I'm a fan of Russell, I just hope his shooting and handles are better than advertised.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> This is just my educated? hunch on what I think will happen...not what I want to happen....
> 
> I too, like Gordon more than Westbrook, but I would not be unhappy about adding Westbrook at all....
> 
> ...



That would kill. Although, I think some of us are over-emphasizing man to man defense, if Nate's team defense is on point, then we won't have any problems regardless of who we have playing at the point guard spot. I think Pritchard is right is saying that shooting at that position is at a premium.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTCi4nB_moM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTCi4nB_moM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I thought this one was a bit better than the OLive one. Longer interview. It seems like he really likes Portland. I love this kid, man.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Good vid, thanks!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

MrJayremmie said:


> I thought this one was a bit better than the OLive one. Longer interview. It seems like he really likes Portland. I love this kid, man.


That's a good clip. I, too, would love to see him as a Blazer next year.

I think that I like Gordon a little better, but... it's close 

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> This is just my educated? hunch on what I think will happen...not what I want to happen....
> 
> I too, like Gordon more than Westbrook, but I would not be unhappy about adding Westbrook at all....
> 
> ...


This is I assume due to a trade of:
Jack, Outlaw, Raef and the #13 for
Richard Jefferson and the #10?

Seems about right to Blazer fans, but I am sure NJ (and their fans) wants more. A near all star and moving up in the lotto for bench players they will say. If NJ insists on adding Webster, Frye or Pryz, then the Blazers have to think hard. Can the team easily replace whichever of those guys goes out? Maybe we add a future 1st instead. That might satisfy them.

I am a bit leary of RJ. I like the RJ of a couple seasons ago, because he played defense, and it looked like he might develop a 3pt shot. Since then, he stopped playing hard on the defensive end and his outside shooting hasn't improved. RJ is a solid, all-around type player who can do a lot of different things to help a team. He is similar to Roy. He is almost the SF equivalent to Roy. Which maybe isn't the best match for our team. Do we need two Roy's on the floor?

Ideally, our dream three is a lock down defender who can check ones, twos and threes and has a deadly outside shot. To site a topical example, a prime (and healthy) James Posey.

Who would be candidates after eliminating superstars like Pierce? 
Childress? Granger? Maggette? Dunleavey? Deng? Mike Miller? Tayshaun Prince? Who of these or any other player has the best blend of defense and long range shooting? Which are obtainable at a decent price?


----------



## Entity (Feb 21, 2005)

Man, there are just so many players that are good in this draft. I've seen drafts that were better at the top two or three, but in the lower part of the lottery... I mean, most of these kids are freshmen. It's just ridiculous the kind of talent that's there.

There's quite a few guys that are hyped, though, that I think are overrated listed ahead of some of these good players.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I don't know of a better option, but here are my concerns about Westbrook:

KP said that an outside shot is essential given Roy, ALdridge and Oden. Westbrook's weakness is outside shooting. I'm not so sure he can just practice to pick that up (see Sergio and every other PG that has stuggled with an outside shot).

Now I know he shot well at the workout, but that is what concerns me. One good shooting performance at a workout doesn't make you a good shooter (but I'm sure KP and co know that). Didn't Webster come in and put on a good shooting performance during his workout here?

I know he is a defensive stud (Love says the best defender in the draft) and that alone might merit drafting him. But with the emphisis KP put on needing a shooter, I wonder if Westbrook is the answer at the PG postion.


----------



## <-=*PdX*=-> (Oct 11, 2007)

MrJayremmie said:


> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTCi4nB_moM&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YTCi4nB_moM&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
> 
> I thought this one was a bit better than the OLive one. Longer interview. It seems like he really likes Portland. I love this kid, man.


Great vid. I would not mind one bit to see Portland trade up and take him. First, where do you think he will go and how much would it take to get that spot? the #13 and... ?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

It's_GO_Time said:


> I don't know of a better option, but here are my concerns about Westbrook:
> 
> KP said that an outside shot is essential given Roy, ALdridge and Oden. Westbrook's weakness is outside shooting. I'm not so sure he can just practice to pick that up (see Sergio and every other PG that has stuggled with an outside shot).
> 
> ...


I agree that there are concerns about Westbrook's shooting from distance, but his mid-range game was pretty solid at UCLA this year -- but definitely still a work in progress. As for improving their shooting I worry less about Russell than I do Sergio for one simple fact; Westbrook has sound shooting form and actually puts arc on his shot whereas Sergio absolutely has not to this point. A flat shot, due to the laws of physics, is a lower percentage shot because it's in effect aimed at a smaller target and rolls tend to be less kind.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

I wanted Rose for the Blazers for over a year. I really thought we would have a chance at him when Oden went down. I didn't really think we would end up with the 13th pick. I thought we would have maybe a top 5 pick and thought Rose would go in the top 3. 

I think Westbrook is our best bet for a good starting PG in this draft after Rose. He has size, speed, leaping ability, can drive the ball and plays great defense and is a good character guy. He isn't a great shooting but not as bad as people think and can develop to be a good shooter in time. A few games I watched him play PG at UCLA (Collison in foul trouble) he looked like he had good PG skills that will need to be develop. I think if we can't trade for a veteran PG or even a veteran SF we need to try and trade up if we have to get Westbrook


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> This is I assume due to a trade of:
> Jack, Outlaw, Raef and the #13 for
> Richard Jefferson and the #10?


Actually, I think it would not involve the picks...NJ keeps its #10...POR keeps #13, maybe one of the high 2nd rounders? Maybe Freeland is tossed in? I don't know...

I am not a fan of Jefferson...it just seems to me that from what I have read out there and snipits from POR mgmt...that Jefferson seesm like a logical target...I agree Thorn is a tough negotiator....IS this enough for Jefferson for him? I don't know...I remember reading\hearing that Thorn wanted Outlaw as part of the 3-way Harris deal and POR wouldn't trade him...

Not sure what POR would use to move up from #13...a future 1st? 1-2 2nd rounders? Sergio?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

It's a fine clip but I dunno about it as a way to judge how much he likes Portland. What else is he going to say? He wants to make it in the league and he probably has equally sincere interest in virtually every team out there.

Still, he does potentially fit the team well which means, among other things, that he's got some real hope for PT on what should be a pretty good team -- perhaps the best team of the teams with a reasonable shot at him (outside of a team like the Spurs or Lakers somehow trading for access to him).


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

It seems if KP decides this is the guy they really want, they should be able to move up and get him. Looking at the mock drafts, it appears we would need to make a deal with New Jersey or Charlotte, who pick 9 and 10. Neither team has a great need for a PG, although Charlotte does need a backup behind Felton. I would be OK with trading our 13 and next year's first rounder for that pick. I don't think 2nd round picks woulod be enough. It seems it would be allowable to trade two consecutive first rounders if you are getting another first rounder back, but I don't know that, does anyone? 

Charlotte might be interested in Jack, but I don't see how the money would match up (although we did trade a draft pick plus Khyapa for another draft pick, how did that work?). The other idea would involve Frye to Charlotte, Larry Brown really utililized him well in NY, that would probably be Frye plus 13 for Sean May plus 9. May has hardly played at all due to injuries and is in his final year of his contract. Frye is kind of a high price to move up 4 spots though, but I can't see what else we would want from Charlotte, maybe a first rounder two years out?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I think that shooting as a weakness for Westbrook has been overplayed. He's a good midrange shooter at 46.5%, and only shot 77 3's last season that's about 1.9-2.0 a game at a 34% clip. While I'm not saying he is a sharp shooter, I think that we don't have a big enough sample size of his shooting to really make a judgement on if he is a bad shooter or not. 

That said, I really think that Westbrook would be a great player for our team. Good or bad shooter aside, all his other skills are exactly what we are looking for. A GREAT slasher, great defense and good size. Along with developing PG skills, which are not greatly needed as Roy can still handle a lot of the PG duties.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Ukrainefan said:


> \I don't think 2nd round picks woulod be enough. It seems it would be allowable to trade two consecutive first rounders if you are getting another first rounder back, but I don't know that, does anyone?
> 
> \


I think it happened because Chicago had already drafted LMA. At that point, he had a salary attached to his status of being the second round pick and the "salaries" could match up. That's why some trades can't happen until draft day.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

craigehlo said:


> I was at least reassured to hear that Westbrook showed a shooting touch during the workout. He also seems like he could be a nice slasher and finisher at the rim, which we currently lack at PG.


What? We don't lack what you said...Jarrett Jack is pretty good at slashing and finishing. Sure, that may be about all he can do, but he's definitely good at it, even though he may be worthless for anything else.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

c_note said:


> What? We don't lack what you said...Jarrett Jack is pretty good at slashing and finishing. Sure, that may be about all he can do, but he's definitely good at it, even though he may be worthless for anything else.


I expect Craig meant "will soon be lacking at PG." I'll be amazed if Jack is still on the roster at the point the season starts, and even if he is, Westbrook almost certainly brings better defense and Fernandez almost certainly brings better virtually-everything-else -- there'd be precious little PT for him. Honestly I hope for everyone's sakes, including Jack's, that Pritchard moves him soon.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

13Th and Jack for as high as we can get.

maybe a package of 13th, 36, 55 and cash.

the high second rounders we have have a good deal of worth.

if he is the blazers guy KP do whatever it takes to get him!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

c_note said:


> What? We don't lack what you said...Jarrett Jack is pretty good at slashing and finishing. Sure, that may be about all he can do, but he's definitely good at it, even though he may be worthless for anything else.


Ya, I'm for getting Westbrook, but from the video's I've seen on a fast break he runs down the court and takes it to the basket instead of passing it to anyone just like Jarrett. Of course it may just be whoever made the videos thought that was more interesting than him making a not as exciting pass.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

mgb said:


> Ya, I'm for getting Westbrook, but from the video's I've seen on a fast break he runs down the court and takes it to the basket instead of passing it to anyone just like Jarrett. Of course it may just be whoever made the videos thought that was more interesting than him making a not as exciting pass.


Yeah, I'm amazed, and saddened, by the frequency with which people put highlight reels together that just so the player in question scoring and, for the most part, scoring with dunks or three-point shots. It's like defense, passing, rebounding, etc. are trivial parts of the game.

Regardless, I'm thinking McMillan and his staff should be capable of curing even someone like Jack of the tendency to finish themselves _if_ they think that's what's best for the team. In Jack's case, he's a weak enough passer in situations like that that I can see the staff deciding to suggest he just finish himself most of the time. I'm not certain but I _think_ Westbrook is a step ahead of Jack for basic ball-handling and the like.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Westbrook seems to be Nate's type of guy. Who cares if he can finish... that isn't a bad thing. It is a bad thing when you only look to pass when you can't finish... unlike Jack... Westbrook doesn't just try to draw a foul.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I too would like to get Westbrook, but we have to remember that it will be hard to trade up to get him. There are a lot of teams this year that will be looking to get one of the PG's in the top 10, so we will have competition. For one thing, I think that the Pacers will be trying to trade up just to make sure they don't lose out on Westbrook, and any team trading with them would bet the 11th back instead of the 13th. I think to trade for the 8th, 9th, 10th, the Blazers are going to have to add something of real value, not just Jack and some second rounders. The Bucks will want one of our SF's. The Nets I think are the most likely, we would take on KVH contract and give up Frye. Bobcats would also want something like Frye or perhaps Oultaw (I think that would be too much). But I could see the Pacers F'n up any deal we made. For example, lets say we wanted to trade with the Net's, But the Pacers then selected who the Nets really wanted, that would put them in the position of power like KP did selecting Foye.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/haq_JS0YFXk&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/haq_JS0YFXk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Didn't know where to post this, and i didn't want to start a new thread for this. 

But this is a really awesome vid. Has one of my favorite songs, on top of his game before college (throughout high school). I think this kid is special.

I'm really pissed that the knicks are highly interested at 6, and that they were awed by him at his workout (yesterday i think). Hopefully KP does what he has to do. Its good to hear from Chad Ford that the Blazers are eye-ing Westbrook! 

Probably one of the better made vids i've seen of a prospect. Starts with him as a youngin' and finishes with him cutting the net on the way to the final 4.

I want to find a good one like this On Eric Gordon also.


----------



## Balian (Apr 11, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> <object height="344" width="425">
> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/haq_JS0YFXk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="344" width="425"></object>
> 
> Didn't know where to post this, and i didn't want to start a new thread for this.
> ...


The Knicks is probably setting a smokescreen for the Blazers. Perhaps they want to make a deal with the Blazers? A lot of the draft chatters right now are smokescreens. Aside from the top 4, everything is up for grabs.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea, lets hope so.

I still think 6 is too high to draft him.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year.
Freakish athleticism.
6-foot-6 guard with handles.
Ability to finish on the fast break.
Ability to break down a defender and get to the hoop.

I'm sold.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

alext42083 said:


> Pac-10 Defensive Player of the Year.
> Freakish athleticism.
> 6-foot-6 guard with handles.
> Ability to finish on the fast break.
> ...


Russell Westbrook 6'6"????

Where'd that come from? Westbrook measured 6'2.25" without shoes (0.25" shorter than Jarrett Jack) and 6'3.5" with shoes.

If he was 6'6" he'd probably be in the conversation with Rose, Beasley and Mayo as a top 3 or 4 pick.

BNM


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Russell Westbrook 6'6"????
> 
> Where'd that come from? Westbrook measured 6'2.25" without shoes (0.25" shorter than Jarrett Jack) and 6'3.5" with shoes.
> 
> ...


whoops, my bad. I thought I saw 6-6 somewhere. 6-3.5 with shoes is good enough for me. I'm sold either way.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Yea. But 6'4 is still great size for a PG. Mix that with a long wingspan and quickness and mad hops, and it makes it even better.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

When is the next Blazer player workout?


----------



## nikolokolus (Jan 29, 2008)

His 6'9" (IIRC) wingspan makes him much longer than his height would suggest. And to those who say the #6 is too rich for this guy, I think you're mistaken ... then again I suppose it's all dependent on what Donnie Walsh is willing to accept in trade (probably at least Travis, #13, and Jack (or Sergio who seems like he might actually flourish in a D'Antoni offense), as well as taking back an undesirable contract.

Whatever the case I think this guy has Blazer written all over him and seems like he would be Nate's dream come true in the form of his perimeter defense, better than advertised outside shot, and outstanding athleticism.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> When is the next Blazer player workout?


Alexander, Green, and Batum are going at it today

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Alexander, Green, and Batum are going at it today
> 
> STOMP


I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that one. All three of those guys have fans - and people who are equally convinced they are frauds.


----------

