# A Less Flattering Look at the Blazers



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/specials/preview/2006/enemy.lines/trail_blazers.html

He doesn't seem to have the same optimism for Roy or Jack that many of us do.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



article said:


> They're going to finish dead last in the West. I could see where they might start out OK with a lot of enthusiasm, but they're going to hit those bumps during the long season and keep falling backwards because they're so young. They could be the worst team in the league


Brave prediction.  No one predicted the Blazers to be last in the league before last season, people picked Atlanta because they finished the previous season in last place. This guy and many other "experts" made the same lame prediction.

He might be right, but my guess is the only reason he feels so sure about it is because he has a list of the 05/06 standings in front of him.

I agree with a lot of the rest of the article, but I have the same criticism of it all- it's a little bit of commentary on players' performances last year mixed with a little bit of "well, duh."


I did like reading the "enemy lines" about some of the other teams though, so maybe I'm just being overly critical because he's talking about my team and he didn't tell me anything I haven't heard already.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*

That seemed like an 8th grader wrote it. Just a poor choice of words general.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/specials/preview/2006/enemy.lines/trail_blazers.html
> 
> He doesn't seem to have the same optimism for Roy or Jack that many of us do.


 While I agree with some of the writer's conclusions, no way was that composed by a NBA team's scout. A scout would be aware that the Blazers recent turn over in personnel comes after parting with GM Nash following 3 years swirling deeper down the drain to the worst record in the league. The article also suffered from a very poor logical flow IMO. I'd be following along with a premise and suddenly find myself at some disconnected conclusion.

I do think the club will struggle as their backcourt is a long ways from being good, and that should keep them in the back of the Western pack. Jack, Roy, Sergio, and Martell should all improve down the line from a year in the league as rotation level players, but I expect struggles especially early on. 

I completely disagree with the writer's assertion that Oden's addition would still find this club a long ways out. Greg is a major talent and the team should be much improved. 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



STOMP said:


> I completely disagree with the writer's assertion that Oden's addition would still find this club a long ways out. Greg is a major talent and the team should be much improved.


I think that's my biggest beef... most of what he wrote is fair, if pretty harsh (the team DESERVES harsh, though... they had the fewest wins in the league last year).

But that the team would have to tear down again to build around Oden? That's silly. Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Jack... none of those guys are (IMO) superstars, but put a potential superstar in the middle? That is a pretty badassly talented team. Bring Aldridge off the bench behind Zach and Oden for a couple of years and either add some journeyman depth at the swing spots or hope that Outlaw can contribute, and the team is insanely better.

Of course, getting the superstar is the hard part, and Portland's not there yet.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



Ed O said:


> ....Of course, getting the superstar is the hard part, and Portland's not there yet.
> 
> Ed O.


To me, it would be very interesting if the Blazers miss out on Oden and are faced with the potential dilemma of taking Noah, Durant, or Young.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



SheedSoNasty said:


> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/specials/preview/2006/enemy.lines/trail_blazers.html
> 
> He doesn't seem to have the same optimism for Roy or Jack that many of us do.


I have only read the 1st four paragraphs, and so far it is just a rehash of things many of us on this board pointed out as likely bad moves at the moment they occurred (re-upping Zach instead of waiting, building around Zach, too much/too many years for Darius, reaching for Telfair, passing on Paul. Nothing we didn't already know - a very, very long time ago.

He is summarizing for readers not fans of the Blazers. Fine. What gets me is he says the Blazers have no plan or direction because of the above. Yet all those things happened in the PAST, over a year ago, under the old GM, while the team was for sale.

If the dolt at SI can't see that the circumstances have changed and that they do have a more cohesive direction (no guarantee of success, just moving in the right direction for a change), well pity the fools.

I haven't read SI for over 20 years. They seldom have good information. They do pictures and personality profiles.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



Masbee said:


> reaching for Telfair


Obviously it wasn't a reach considering years later he was traded for the 7th overall pick in last year's draft. Not to mention the only players of any significance drafted AFTER Telfair were Kevin Martin and Josh Smith. Even then, I think everyone would take the results of Telfair being traded (Roy) over either of those guys.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



Ed O said:


> I think that's my biggest beef... most of what he wrote is fair, if pretty harsh (the team DESERVES harsh, though... they had the fewest wins in the league last year).
> 
> But that the team would have to tear down again to build around Oden? That's silly. Roy, Webster, Aldridge, Jack... none of those guys are (IMO) superstars, but put a potential superstar in the middle? That is a pretty badassly talented team. Bring Aldridge off the bench behind Zach and Oden for a couple of years and either add some journeyman depth at the swing spots or hope that Outlaw can contribute, and the team is insanely better.
> 
> ...


Stop teasing me!

And yes Stomp and Ed O, the guy is way off-base. To plug Oden into our roster, coupled with the added year of experience for the young players would make for a huge improvement.

Zach before his injury was an above average player. Not a star, but above average. He looks like he might be working his way back to form.
Joel is an average player.
Jack last year was a below average player as an injured rookie, but looks much improved this year. I bet he is already an average player.
Martell is closing in on being an average player.
Roy already is an average player early in his rookie campaign. He is likely to be an above average player.
LaMarcus is too early to tell. There is a good chance that he is average or better.

Blazers win lotto. Assume Jamaal and Miles go away for little value in return. They keep Zach, because he is the only big contract and they can't get fair value. Keep Joel as he is on a reasonable contract.

Front Line: Oden & Zach backed up Joel and LaMarcus. Awesome, awesome front line. Includes guys who can shoot, post, defend, block, and rebound.

Perimeter: Jack, Roy and Webster, backed up by ???. Includes guys who can handle the ball, shoot, really shoot, slash, defend. Anchored by Roy. Need one of these guys to become a stud, or at least two of them to be above average.

Flesh out the roster with MLE free agents over the next few years. Perimeter guys are easier to find in various ways than bigs are. If the Blazers could get something good in one way or another out of Jamaal, Miles, Sergio, Travis, Dixon, Dickau, LaFrentz's expiring contract, future picks, they could really be on their way.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*

Whenever a writer mentions Dixon as a leader and strong contributer, and Aldridge as a player who will recieve a lot of minutes this season, it's obvious they have no clue what they're talking about.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

I agree with all aspects of that article. everything.

...we nay not finish last though.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

With 20/20 hindsight, this writer is Master of the Obvious.

Give me a break. This article wasn't even worth printing. Sounds more like his wife pisses him off and he takes it out in his articles. He may be right on half of his assertions, but it is so last year.
Put in some effort and actually pay attention to the season that has begun. 
Saying Miles looks uninterested is a mute point. He isn't even back from injury.
Saying how LaFrenz fits with team is an assumption since he hasn't played yet.
Saying Roy isn't the star that Morrison is, is really shortsighted.
Saying the team rebuild plan needs to be revamped again. Well duh, we were in last place.

Same old sheisse, another day.
Try and actually research your article rather than going off memory from last year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yup, Blazers are basically the Bulls of a few years ago. You know they have talent. Its just a matter of when they will breakout, but you never no what year it'll be, and the safe bet is to go with them being one of the worst teams in the league, especially with Aldridge out.


----------



## naibsel (Dec 21, 2005)

sorry how exactly did u guys pass up on paul when he was taken with the 4th pick and u had the 6th???

thats what struck me when reading this article. a few of these overviews seem very ill-informed with absurd comparisons. eg. Sean Marks as a poor mans boris diaw. 

......yeh thats what i immediately think when i see marks and his career 0.2apg


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

naibsel said:


> sorry how exactly did u guys pass up on paul when he was taken with the 4th pick and u had the 6th???
> 
> thats what struck me when reading this article. a few of these overviews seem very ill-informed with absurd comparisons. eg. Sean Marks as a poor mans boris diaw.
> 
> ......yeh thats what i immediately think when i see marks and his career 0.2apg


We had the 3rd pick but traded it for the 6th and whatever pick we took Jack at so if we wanted to we could have drafted Paul, instead we got Webster and Jack.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



ABM said:


> To me, it would be very interesting if the Blazers miss out on Oden and are faced with the potential dilemma of taking Noah, Durant, or Young.


We should take Durant if that happens. No if's, and's, or but's.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: A Less Flatering Look at the Blazers*



zagsfan20 said:


> We should take Durant if that happens. No if's, and's, or but's.


Absolutely. Without hesitation. 

Oden and Durant are, IMO, locks in the top 3. Noah will barely be top-ten.

That said, the players available in next year's draft will be on display this year, and we should be openminded in considering who really are the best prospects. Because the Blazers surely will be in the running for the bottom of the heap.

iWatas


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I may be in the minority, but I don't think we'll be one the bottom four teams in the league.

I think we're decent at every starting position except small forward and may be okay there. Zach looks like he's back better than ever and Roy looks good at the 2 spot. Center is somewhat decent with pryz and mags. And point is also somewhat decent with Jack. Small forward is a huge question with Webster et al.

I think we will be better than Atlanta, Charlotte, New York, Utah and Golden State when things are said and done.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> I may be in the minority, but I don't think we'll be one the bottom four teams in the league.
> 
> I think we're decent at every starting position except small forward and may be okay there. Zach looks like he's back better than ever and Roy looks good at the 2 spot. Center is somewhat decent with pryz and mags. And point is also somewhat decent with Jack. Small forward is a huge question with Webster et al.
> 
> I think we will be better than Atlanta, Charlotte, New York, Utah and Golden State when things are said and done.


Well injurys will change things, but right now the only Western team I project the Blazers ahead of is the Griz, and thats because of losing Pau. I see the Jazz as a playoff team potencially fighting for home court in the first round.

STOMP


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

The last time I looked the Detroit Pistons didn't have a true superstar on their team! Agreed? Sure we can all debate Sheed's potential till we drop, but not a Kobe, KG, Dirk, AI or so forth for big money attraction. Yet this Detroit team has a championship cause they are a team. 

The Blazers can do the same. Our team has some very nice pieces, Jack, Roy, Joel and Martell. Rebuild is not the answer, teaching these kids is. Nate can do that!


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I thought he under-rated Jack. We passed on Paul, but picked up Jarrett Jack, who has been averaging 13 points pgg in only 26mpg, and is shooting 55% from the field. He's doing much better than Paul is right now.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Paul at Wake, Jack at GT, watch some of those matchups to decide who you'd rather have as your starting PG.

Jack hasn't even tapped his potential yet. He was on a bum leg all last year and still won the starting spot, what does that tell everyone?

On top of that at GT, Jacks #2 guy was no where close to as good as Roy is and Jack took that team single handed to the final four. Paul could not do the same with a vastly more talented Deacon team. 

Jack was a steal for us! :clap: :clap:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

It's going to be very interesting if we don't get Oden this next draft because all these great players already play at the position we have young players at. It's going to be a fun offseason next year.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> It's going to be very interesting if we don't get Oden this next draft because all these great players already play at the position we have young players at. It's going to be a fun offseason next year.


I could see a lineup of Jack/Roy/Webster/Durant/Aldridge. Durant would eventually bulk up, he has a 7'5" wingspan and a higher standing reach than Aldridge.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Verro said:


> I could see a lineup of Jack/Roy/Webster/Durant/Aldridge. Durant would eventually bulk up and he has a higher standing reach than Aldridge (an 8'5" wingspan).


Eh, I'll have to see more of Durant in college, but I think it depends on how Zach plays this season and if he can keep it up. Zach is only 25, he can be the veteran leader on this young team.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Verro said:


> I could see a lineup of Jack/Roy/Webster/Durant/Aldridge. Durant would eventually bulk up and he has a higher standing reach than Aldridge (an 8'5" wingspan).


While I haven't seen a legit measurement of Durant yet, a 7'5 wingspan would be the biggest on the Blazers... maybe you meant a 8'5 standing reach? Just for reference, LaMarcus measured in with a 7'4 3/4" wingspan and a 9'2" standing reach.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Eh, I'll have to see more of Durant in college, but I think it depends on how Zach plays this season and if he can keep it up. Zach is only 25, he can be the veteran leader on this young team.


Since Durant is projected at the 3, I don't really see why Zach's play this season should have any bearing on whether the Blazers select him. Dude has a decent handle and a sweet stroke to go with those loooong arms. I too am looking forward to seeing him at Texas this season.

STOMP


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

STOMP said:


> While I haven't seen a legit measurement of Durant yet, a 7'5 wingspan would be the biggest on the Blazers... maybe you meant a 8'5 standing reach? Just for reference, LaMarcus measured in with a 7'4 3/4" wingspan and a 9'2" standing reach.
> 
> STOMP


Lol, yeah that was a typo I meant to say Durant has a 7'5" wingspan.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Since Durant is projected at the 3, I don't really see why Zach's play this season should have any bearing on whether the Blazers select him. Dude has a decent handle and a sweet stroke to go with those loooong arms. I too am looking forward to seeing him at Texas this season.
> 
> STOMP


Because many people say that Durant may be able to bulk up and move to the 4, like Verro said. I personally wouldn't like to move him, maybe trade Webster then?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Because many people say that Durant may be able to bulk up and move to the 4, like Verro said. I personally wouldn't like to move him, maybe trade Webster then?


I'm not sure what you'd hope to get for Webster at that point but why would you move him? Not everyone gets to start. Imagine the line-up flexibility with Roy playing the 1, 2, or 3, Webster playing the 2 or 3, Durant playing the 3 or 4, and Randolph and Aldridge both either 4 or 5 (particularly if the league continues the trend away from the "bruising" big men, going with a model more like the Suns'. Plug Jack or nearly anyone else in as the starting PG but end games with those five and there's a lot of good basketball happening. 

If Oden weren't so clearly the best player, I'd just as soon take someone in the Durant/Gay mold, given the bigs of Zach, Aldridge, Pryzbilla, and a hopefully resigned (for a lot less) LaFrentz (who's unlikely to get a lot slower but should be able to shoot, defend, and rebound fairly well in a halfcourt game for several more years).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Because many people say that Durant may be able to bulk up and move to the 4, like Verro said. I personally wouldn't like to move him, maybe trade Webster then?


I guess he could bulk up but why? If he's quick enough to guard 3's I'd rather have his length there. If Portland is lucky enough to add Durant I see him as the future at 3 with Martell as the main backup wing. Since both bring outside shots and length they should be able blend with a variety of teammates. I like the way that would project though...

Joel, Aldridge, Zach, Durant, Martell, Roy, Jack, Sergio

...I see good size/length and athletism throughout the lineup and what would seem to be complimentry games. There are 240 minutes per game... divided by 8... equals 30 minutes each. Everybody is happy!

I could also live with Oden :wink:

STOMP


----------

