# What SF are you interested in drafting.



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Which SF outside of Durant would you like to draft most? I was going to make a poll, but I would rather have people list two or three SF's that intrest them and explain why. So, who makes you drool? I have listed all the SF's that draft express has going in the first round, but please feel free to suggest others.

Julian Wright http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=275
Corey Brewer http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=414
Al Thornton http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=591
Jeff Green http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=368
Marcus Williams http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=546
Nick Young http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=385
Brandon Rush http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=78
Jared Dudley http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=181
Alando Tucker http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=386
Morris Almond http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=1026
Dominic McGuire http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=1162
Other

P.S. don't overlook Dominic McGuire just cause he's last.


The three that I am currently most interested in are:
1) Julian Wright - Great at everything except 3pt shooting and free throws. His will to take over has been questioned by some.
2) Al Thornton - Excellent shooter, athlete and rebounder. very quick first step and high quick release allow him to get his shot off. One big drawback is he is not a good passer.
3) Dominic Mcguire - Great athlete with high bball IQ. 6'8", team oriented yet can do it all. score, rebound and assist and block like crazy. Not a good 3pt shooter.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I don't know why, but Young is my choice, followed by Thornton, Wright, Green, Brewer

I would be happy with any of them personally. Young seems like he has the highest basketball IQ, but Thornton looks like a beast....maybe a little too beastly for a SF though.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I don't know why, but Young is my choice, followed by Thornton, Wright, Green, Brewer
> 
> I would be happy with any of them personally. Young seems like he has the highest basketball IQ, but Thornton looks like a beast....maybe a little too beastly for a SF though.


Nick young played like poop the other day against Oregon. He showed no ability to take charge of the situation and command the ball. That was only one game, but since it was the last one it stands out to me. 

By the way, one of the reasons I am so interested in Thornton is I think he has the ability to play both high speed running ball as well as half court ball. He seems very versatile which is what the Blazers need.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> Nick young played like poop the other day against Oregon. He showed no ability to take charge of the situation and command the ball. That was only one game, but since it was the last one it stands out to me.
> 
> By the way, one of the reasons I am so interested in Thornton is I think he has the ability to play both high speed running ball as well as half court ball. He seems very versatile which is what the Blazers need.




WTF is Nick Young? I'm talking about Thadeus Young from Georgia Tech


That's my feelings on Thornton as well.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Julian Wright and Thaddeus Young are most intriguing to me

after that Corey Brewer and Jeff Green would be next, and Alando Tucker could be a sleeper who falls further than he should in the draft...


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

After the Kansas game its hard to think of any other SF other than Durant. He looked like Larry Bird yesterday.

Is Thaddy not on the list because he is staying?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

2k said:


> After the Kansas game its hard to think of any other SF other than Durant. He looked like Larry Bird yesterday.
> 
> Is Thaddy not on the list because he is staying?


I don't know. Thad was not on the 2007 or 2008 drafts at draftexpress so maybe they forgot him. He is listed 11th on NBAdraft.net.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Wright, Young, Rush, Tucker. In that order probably...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I think we could do better trading the pick and a guy like Outlaw for a vet 3 than drafting one. If we stay around 7, let's go big.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I think we could do better trading the pick and a guy like Outlaw for a vet 3 than drafting one. If we stay around 7, let's go big.



The NBA is going away from "big" No need to waste a pick on an outdated player. Unless by big you mean someone like Horford, who is an athletic "4"


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> The NBA is going away from "big" No need to waste a pick on an outdated player. Unless by big you mean someone like Horford, who is an athletic "4"


By 'big' I mean a 4 or a 5. 

Unless we get lucky, J. Wright and Durant won't be available, and the 3's below that don't really knock my socks off. Also, we'd be drafting them higher than their worth. I think Brewer, Green, and Williams are all guys who could easily drop.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

I Like Al Thornton, he is a straight BEAST. He would be the physical presence we need on defense and offense.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I like Thornton.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

This isn't evidence of anything, but I found it interesting, and it caused me to reconsider what the best plan might be for this summer:



> Rice: Looking at the number of young players already on this Blazer team, versus if a couple of the higher quality players decided to stay in school, would the Blazers be in line then to go after maybe a few more veterans if this draft isn't as deep as you think it is? Would we trade some of the people that we have now to get a few more veterans on the team?
> 
> Pritchard: "I think you look at every option, but the question is, we're sitting at the 7-8-9 range right now: Can you find a better player, a better veteran than you can through the draft?
> 
> ...


Maybe it'd be better to make a play with the pick for a guy like Rashard Lewis than drafting at the 7. There are plenty of teams that are headed in the opposite direction of us, rebuilding-wise, and a player might like to hop aboard. A #7 + a re-signed Outlaw + Filler might be better than what we can get at the #7. 

Thankfully, that's up to Pritchard to decide, not I.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

If it was me, I wouldn't draft any SF's. I think we're solid there with Ime and Travis.

I'd use all of our picks to draft the best centers available at those picks.

With the way Joel played this year and LaMarcus being pretty light in the loafers to take on Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Wallace, Miller...we definitely have a huge gaping hole at that position.

Center is the only position I'd trade a player for also as I think a "vets as a last resort only" policy is best for the chemistry of the team right now.

And of course, I'd bring back Ha.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> If it was me, I wouldn't draft any SF's. I think we're solid there with Ime and Travis.
> 
> I'd use all of our picks to draft the best centers available at those picks.
> 
> ...


Your logic baffles me about 80% of the time.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

I've never seen him play, but  this  seems like a good reason not to draft Thaddeus Young. Even Tajuan Porter gets to the line more than he does.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> If it was me, I wouldn't draft any SF's. I think we're solid there with Ime and Travis.
> 
> I'd use all of our picks to draft the best centers available at those picks.
> 
> ...


Anything on your mind?

jk


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Your logic baffles me about 80% of the time.


Okay. You must know something I don't.

Which of our current "Superstar Centers" are you comfortable with depending on for offense and defense all year, and through 4 playoff series to get the Title, against opponents such as Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Wallace, Miller...?

Joel?
Magloire, if we re-sign him?
LaFrentz?
LaMarcus?

'Cause I see a huge gaping hole there.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I see LaMarcus as a more than capable Center, especially in the NBA getting faster and faster. I think LaMarcus can hold his own against Wallace and Miller easily while the only people that can really guard Shaq, Yao and Duncan are Shaq, Yao and Duncan. 

This team needs a SF. I choose Young.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Okay. You must know something I don't.
> 
> Which of our current "Superstar Centers" are you comfortable with depending on for offense and defense all year, and through 4 playoff series to get the Title, against opponents such as Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Wallace, Miller...?
> 
> ...


Shaq is old and almost done.
Duncan is a PF.
Wallace doesn't score.
Miller.....?

I love Ime, in fact he's probably my favorite Blazer, but he's not going to be the starting SF on a championship contender. And Outlaw is too dumb to be a starter on a winner.

But you don't see a gaping hole at SF?


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Durant would obviously be the top choice at sf. i can't decide between Thad Young and Green, but they would be my sf right behind Durant. followed by J. Wright, Al Thorton, Budinger, and Brewer. if i had the choice, i'd still draft J. Wright ahead of young and Green, but i would trade down for either Young or Green thereafter.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Shaq is old and almost done.
> Duncan is a PF.
> Wallace doesn't score.
> Miller.....?
> ...


Not at all, but that's because I completely disagree with your assessments of Ime, Travis, and to some extent, LaMarcus.

Oh well, it's not like Pritchard's going to call and ask any of us before he does something anyway.

Unfortunately, due to Nate's campaigning, I predict we'll take on a vet with baggage this summer.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

chase budinger .............jeff green.............the rest


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Unfortunately, due to Nate's campaigning, I predict we'll take on a vet with baggage this summer.



Rashard Lewis? He is familiar with Nate, young, and fits in with the Blazers. How much "campaign game" does nate have?


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

I understand this thread is about SF's, but I recall in a chat that KP said they are now in a position with their team to go best player available in this draft. I wish they had done that and drafted Williams instead of trading the pick to Utah. The Blazers will be looking at all of the players, not just the SF's. I hope they stay away from the PG position though. I am not impressed with any of them, and they are all short. Of the SF's, I like Wright and then barely care for Young. After that they are all pretty much the same. That is why drafting best player available makes the most sense.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would be really dissapointed if the blazers did not draft someone. One of my favorite parts of the NBA is the draft and watching the young players improve. Of corse, for the right person I would understand and might support the trade, but no matter who we got as a vet, I would feel a little bit cheated out of the draft party.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

www.starbury.com said:


> *chase budinger *.............jeff green.............the rest


I like him, but he projects as a SG in the NBA.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

1. Brewer
2. Wright/Thaddeus Young
3. Alando Tucker

I haven't seen enough of Wright or Young to make a good judgement about them. I've been impressed with what I've seen from Brewer. Definitely no to Jared Dudley.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm hoping we sign Desmond Mason.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I'm hoping we sign Desmond Mason.


I am hoping that if we sign him, we don't have to give up anything other then half the MLE. not worth any more then that.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My first choice would definately be to trade for an established all star to borderline all star athletic, youngish SF. Then replace Zach through the draft.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I'm hoping we sign Desmond Mason.


So we can have 389569234 small forwards? Awesome!


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Here is my list of SF's...

1. Kevin Durant: I would trade anyone on this team to get this kid. He is a cant miss superstar. Will be better than Carmello, IMO. 

2. Thaddeus Young: I dont understand why this kid doesnt get more hype. He is a better shooter than advertised, has amazing athlecism and is only a freshman. 15ppg, 5rpg, 2apg, 1.3spg while shooting 48% FG and 41% 3pt. He has more potential than any other SF in this draft except Durant. 
3. Jeff Green: Probably too high, but I love the idea of Roy/Green tandem. Two extremley smart players who rarley make mistakes. His game reminds me of Lamar Odom w/ less athlecism and more strength. 
4. Julian Wright: I love the way he palays, but this dude makes Ruben Patterson look like Jason Kapono. No jumper at all. That is what scares me. He is a good rebounder, passer and defender with amazing athlecism. Reminds me too much of Travis. 
5. Corey Brewer: A very safe pick, but for where we are going to be picking he would be too high. Great defender who has never been a focal point offensivley. I simply think the Blazers need to draft someone who is going to score more than Brewer, although I would not be opposed to trading down and getting him along with X.
6. Al Thornton: I wont lie, I have never seen him play. But, he seems like a risky player to take. Marcus Haslip seems similar to him, in build at least. I can see him having great workouts and skying to #2.



I would love to sign Desmond Mason, but if I had to choose between Mason and Ime I choose Ime. In a dream we would split the MLE between them, move Ime to SG.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> So we can have 389569234 small forwards? Awesome!


Well, we use Travis as a 4 now, so scratch him off. And Udoka is probably fine with being a scrub or a SG (if we even re-sign him), so scratch him off as demanding minutes. That leaves Martell, who is a 'not ready for primetime player', and Darius Miles, who might not even play next season. D-Mase might fit here after all.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

I am liking brewer also. I think the UNC guys get too much hype just for where they are from. Brewer is an unselfish assist guy that is good on defense and can penetrate with the best of them. At 6' 9" he has some size on him. He is a little thin and has a very similar game to Tayshaun Prince. I have actually seen him play a lot when I was living in Florida a lot of their games were on TV. Plus he is from Portland (Tennessee)


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Green
Brewer

...if neither, trade the pick.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I like the idea of this lineup...

PG- S.Rodriguez/J.Jack
SG- B.Roy/I.Udoka/M.Webster
SF- D.Mason/J.Green/M.Webster
PF- Z.Randolph/T.Outlaw
C- L.Aldridge/J.Pryzbilla

With Mason and Ime slowly loosing PT over the season as Green and Webster progress, or hopefulyl Green or Webster beat one or both out in the PT battle.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I like the idea of this lineup...
> 
> PG- S.Rodriguez/J.Jack
> SG- B.Roy/I.Udoka/M.Webster
> ...


You forgot Freddie Jones.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

With the quality of this draft, I want any roster spots that are open to be filled by either all-star quality vets or draft pick with potential. Mason is an ok player but not worth a roster spot at this time. We can use our first round pick on a player like Horford or Hawes and then package out second rounders to grab Dominic McGuire. He is 6'8". Against Stanford he scored 25 and grabbed 13 rebounds. Here is a quote from draft express:


> McGuire is a legit 6-8 swingman who plays all five positions for his team, showing freakish athleticism, a terrific frame, and the kind of emerging versatile skill-set that draws comparisons to a young Joe Johnson from his days at Arkansas. “He’s the most talented wing player on the West Coast besides Budinger,” says one NBA scout who has been out to see him on multiple occasions. “We’re talking lottery-type upside here.”


He is a joe johnson type player who can do it all. I would use the roster spot on him before I would think about wasting it on Mason.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Well, we use Travis as a 4 now, so scratch him off. And Udoka is probably fine with being a scrub or a SG (if we even re-sign him), so scratch him off as demanding minutes. That leaves Martell, who is a 'not ready for primetime player', and Darius Miles, who might not even play next season. D-Mase might fit here after all.



Why spend MLE money on someone with no upside? Ime is better and can probably be had cheaper. You got a long list of guys for the Blazers that can play the 2/3 as backups; Martell, Travis, Ime, Freddy Jones, and you might have Joel Freeland coming over as well. I like Mason but he is just a taller version of Freddy Jones. We don't need to spend more money on wings, we need to spend the money on a big man and the best way to do that is through the draft since they would come cheaper.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Why spend MLE money on someone with no upside?


We might not have to spend MLE money on him.



> Ime is better and can probably be had cheaper.


Maybe at outside shooting, but Mason can get to the basket and play defense (and will probably hold up better than Udoka)



> You got a long list of guys for the Blazers that can play the 2/3 as backups; Martell


Okay.



> Travis,


He rarely plays SF anymore. Plus he's not a competitor for the starting job like Mason would be. If we grabbed Mason we'd be doing so to start him.



> Ime,


Again, at his price we could afford to bench him if we wanted. I don't think there's a downside to bringing in another guy. We could move Ime over to the 2 and have Martell and Mason exclusively at the 3.



> Freddy Jones


Doesn't play the 3.



> and you might have Joel Freeland coming over as well.


He's more of a 4 than a three. Anyway, even if he did come over he'd be playing spot minutes unless he blew us out of the water like Sergio did.



> We don't need to spend more money on wings, we need to spend the money on a big man and the best way to do that is through the draft since they would come cheaper.


I agree. I'm a proponent of drafting big if we keep the pick.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> Which SF outside of Durant would you like to draft most? I was going to make a poll, but I would rather have people list two or three SF's that intrest them and explain why. So, who makes you drool? I have listed all the SF's that draft express has going in the first round, but please feel free to suggest others.
> 
> Julian Wright http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=275
> Corey Brewer http://draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=414
> ...


Greg Oden.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Greg Oden.



Durant (SF) > Oden (C) If we get lucky and net the top pick you still select a SF


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)




----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

BIG Q said:


> I like him, but he projects as a SG in the NBA.


I could see Budinger playing the 3 in today's NBA, he has the length to at least.

He's definitely the college wing that has me most intrigued, besides of course Durant.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Durant (SF) > Oden (C) If we get lucky and net the top pick you still select a SF


I am no expert - but I found the following article interesting:

http://www.nbadraft.net/prevenas077.asp


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I loves me some Julian Wright. I've got Kansas going all the way with him taking the ish over down the stretch.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Durant (SF) > Oden (C) If we get lucky and net the top pick you still select a SF


Durant's a great player, no doubt.

But there's a reason Ohio State has been so dominant and Texas hasn't - and that's inside presence.

I'd pick Oden over Durant 99 times out of 100 regardless of what type of player I thought I needed that day.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> I am no expert - but I found the following article interesting:
> 
> http://www.nbadraft.net/prevenas077.asp



The problem with this article is this



> Possible Durant Ceilings: Dirk Nowitzki, Tracy McGrady, Kevin Garnett, George Gervin. Total NBA championships: zero.
> 
> Possible Oden Ceilings: David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Bill Russell. Total NBA championships: seventeen.


Now my turn 

Possible Durant Ceilings: Scottie Pippen, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, James Worthy. Total NBA championships: 20

Possible Oden Ceilings: Even if I use the same ones, Durant still has 3 more. but for funs sake lets go with Patrick Ewing, Yao Ming, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier. Total NBA championships: 0


There, now who would you draft


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> The problem with this article is this
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fair enough. But I think he still makes a compelling case even if that particular point was a bit biased.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Possible Durant Ceilings: Scottie Pippen, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, James Worthy. Total NBA championships: 20
> 
> Possible Oden Ceilings: Even if I use the same ones, Durant still has 3 more. but for funs sake lets go with Patrick Ewing, Yao Ming, Nate Thurmond, Bob Lanier. Total NBA championships: 0
> 
> ...


The entire ceiling/basement thing is lots of fun, for sure - but I do not have the ability to tell for sure. I also remember that Adam Morrison was shooting the lights out last year and was declared the next Larry Bird for his potential. Did not work that well so far.

The biggest thing I have noticed that would make me think about the Durant vs. Oden thing is that despite Durant's statistical supremacy - it is Oden's team that so far seems to be the real deal. Texas is good, but not nearly as good, so far. We will see how it goes in the tournament soon. Add the fact that he (Oden) is still not 100% with his good hand and the fact that despite the popularity of "the NBA is going faster" crowd the last time a team built on speed won it all was? (And I do not think that a Lakers team that had Kareem was a speed only team). So, if it came to me to choose between the two - Oden all the way.

It is good for the Blazers however that it is not me that they are paying to evaluate the players. A Bummer for me however


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> The entire ceiling/basement thing is lots of fun, for sure - but I do not have the ability to tell for sure. I also remember that Adam Morrison was shooting the lights out last year and was declared the next Larry Bird for his potential. Did not work that well so far.
> 
> The biggest thing I have noticed that would make me think about the Durant vs. Oden thing is that despite Durant's statistical supremacy - it is Oden's team that so far seems to be the real deal. Texas is good, but not nearly as good, so far. We will see how it goes in the tournament soon. Add the fact that he (Oden) is still not 100% with his good hand and the fact that despite the popularity of "the NBA is going faster" crowd the last time a team built on speed won it all was? (And I do not think that a Lakers team that had Kareem was a speed only team). So, if it came to me to choose between the two - Oden all the way.
> 
> It is good for the Blazers however that it is not me that they are paying to evaluate the players. A Bummer for me however


It's unfair to compare teams because OSU simply had a better recruiting class. Well, the Lakers did run, the Bulls did as well. Teams like Houston, and the "new" Lakers ran. That's certainly not all they did, but they ran. Teams like Phoenix, Dallas, the Drexler era Blazers all ran and reached either the finals or the conference championship.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

After that Kansas game, I don't think any team should hesitate in taking Durant over Oden.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

The Bulls were a great defensive team and had very good half court game. The running game they had started with the great defense they had. Houston had the greatest modern era shot blocker in Hakeem and had great half-court game with him as well. Dump it to Hakeem - if he could not make it he would get it out for a long bomber like Sam or Horry or Mario Elie. The 80s Lakers were the last championship team that ran a lot - like Phoenix - but they could also go to the half court game with Kareem.

Dallas became a better team and reached the finals when they slowed down. Nellie's run and gun offense was replaced with better defense and a slower offense under Avery. So far it seems to be working for them. The hottest team in the NBA right now is that plodding, defense juggernaut - the Spurs.

Phoenix is great, it really is. But so far it did not reach the finals and it is built around a rare player in Nash that can make it happen all the time. We have seen that they fall apart when he is not in the lineup and we have seen that other teams that run like crazy (Golden State, The new look Memphis and the Wizards) can go cold as quickly as they go hot. They can run you out of the building or they can get so bad it is not even funny.

In other words - I will need to see 2 maybe 3 years in a row where a Phoenix like team goes all the way and wins it all before I am ready to call the end of the dominant half court, defense and often big man game in the NBA.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Okay. You must know something I don't.
> 
> Which of our current "Superstar Centers" are you comfortable with depending on for offense and defense all year, and through 4 playoff series to get the Title, against opponents such as Shaq, Yao, Duncan, Wallace, Miller...?
> 
> ...


Yes the something he knows is something most of us know. The whole fact Ime is starting is a bad sign to start it off with. The fact Travis and Martlel haven't stepped up enough to take the starting role from a guy who is a NBA D leaguer who was 3rd string on the LA Lakers ought to give you a hint. The flat out fact is, Ime would be a fine backup. What you need in order to have a solid team is consistency. Something all of the Portland small forwards lack. The other thing you need is good decision making. When you watch Portland games you never know if you are going to get 6 points out of all the small forwards on the team, or 20'sh if they all have a good night. Portland needs a player who will consistently put up in the teens,or more, every night. Defend every night. Rebound every night. Not get thrown around like a broom in a Tornado on the inside (Outlaw). Not hesitate when it is time to step up and hit an open shot(All 3 SF). 

My personal preference of the guys listed is Rush. I think he has an NBA game, and he relishes defending the best player on the other team. He never gives up in a game, he knows you may lose a battle early, but you haven't lost the whole game yet.

Durant is awesome, but I don't see us getting the #1. If we did, I would pick him hands down.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> The Bulls were a great defensive team and had very good half court game. The running game they had started with the great defense they had. Houston had the greatest modern era shot blocker in Hakeem and had great half-court game with him as well. Dump it to Hakeem - if he could not make it he would get it out for a long bomber like Sam or Horry or Mario Elie. The 80s Lakers were the last championship team that ran a lot - like Phoenix - but they could also go to the half court game with Kareem.
> 
> Dallas became a better team and reached the finals when they slowed down. Nellie's run and gun offense was replaced with better defense and a slower offense under Avery. So far it seems to be working for them. The hottest team in the NBA right now is that plodding, defense juggernaut - the Spurs.
> 
> ...



Please take note that I am not refering to Phoenix when I say up temnpo. Quicker shots and more of them would be a nice start. Taking advantage of running opportunities. Maybe averaging close to double figures in fast breaks per game. Maybe getting the crowd involved in the game with some electrifying plays.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Please take note that I am not refering to Phoenix when I say up temnpo. Quicker shots and more of them would be a nice start. Taking advantage of running opportunities. Maybe averaging close to double figures in fast breaks per game. Maybe getting the crowd involved in the game with some electrifying plays.


In this case Oden will be perfect. He will be great at blocking and starting the fast break. He is fast in the open court and can be a trailer. If you notice the Oden references are to Russel. He was not the biggest big man in the NBA - but he was one of the fastest.

If the Blazers have an option to get Oden vs. Durant - with Aldridge at the 4 and Oden at the 5 - you would be nuts not to do it. It immediatly makes the Blazers a defensive nightmare and a quick team as well. If you must go slow and play half court you do it with Oden and Zach. Oden, to my eyes, is a no miss opportunity. 

I suspect that Durant would be great as well - but with Oden I am sure the Blazers make the finals in 3 years and the current core. With Durant - I am not sure.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> In this case Oden will be perfect. He will be great at blocking and starting the fast break. He is fast in the open court and can be a trailer. If you notice the Oden references are to Russel. He was not the biggest big man in the NBA - but he was one of the fastest.
> 
> If the Blazers have an option to get Oden vs. Durant - with Aldridge at the 4 and Oden at the 5 - you would be nuts not to do it. It immediatly makes the Blazers a defensive nightmare and a quick team as well. If you must go slow and play half court you do it with Oden and Zach. Oden, to my eyes, is a no miss opportunity.
> 
> I suspect that Durant would be great as well - but with Oden I am sure the Blazers make the finals in 3 years and the current core. With Durant - I am not sure.


Oden would be great, but I think Durant makes us better and more marketable. Aldridge and Durant at the 4-5 and 3-4 is scary as well.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> With Durant - I am not sure.


They had Bill Self on Mike & Mike yesterday, and he was saying not only is Kevin Durant the best freshman he's ever seen play college basketball, but one of the best college basketball players ever, period.

Have you seen him play in many games this season? It's unreal what he does with the basketball. And it's really hard to compare him to anyone, but I'll give it a shot. 

Take KG's body and shrink it a bit, add some pace and a Kobe-esque jump shot out to three.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I have seen Durant and I think he is amazing at the college level. I am certain he will be a very good NBA player, almost certain a star and very likely a superstar. I am not certain however he will be better than T-Mac. He could be, but he might not be. I am not certain he has the killer instinct of Kobe or MJ. He could have it - but I am not certain.

So to me, it comes down to an exceptional 3/4 or an exceptional 5. Exceptional 5s are hard to find. We currently have 2.5 in the NBA - Shaq, Duncan and Yao (Yao is the 0.5 for me until he can dominate an entire season - and don't tell me that Duncan is a 4 - the Spurs put him there but he plays like a 5 on the defense and a lot on the offense). On average you get 2 great 5s in a decade - you get more in the 3/4 position.

Add the fact that at the moment the 5 is playing hurt and his team is better - if you have to choose between them - you go with Oden.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Add the fact that at the moment the 5 is playing hurt and his team is better - if you have to choose between them - you go with Oden.


I think the consensus here is that most teams would rather get the #2 pick instead of the one pick so they don't have to be the one to choose. 

It is pretty sick that Oden has been playing with only one hand this year. Imagine what he could do with both...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> I have seen Durant and I think he is amazing at the college level. I am certain he will be a very good NBA player, almost certain a star and very likely a superstar. I am not certain however he will be better than T-Mac. He could be, but he might not be. I am not certain he has the killer instinct of Kobe or MJ. He could have it - but I am not certain.
> 
> So to me, it comes down to an exceptional 3/4 or an exceptional 5. Exceptional 5s are hard to find. We currently have 2.5 in the NBA - Shaq, Duncan and Yao (Yao is the 0.5 for me until he can dominate an entire season - and don't tell me that Duncan is a 4 - the Spurs put him there but he plays like a 5 on the defense and a lot on the offense). On average you get 2 great 5s in a decade - you get more in the 3/4 position.
> 
> Add the fact that at the moment the 5 is playing hurt and his team is better - if you have to choose between them - you go with Oden.




But how important are 5's in todays game. Shaq wins nothing without Kobe or Wade...and vise versa. Duncan IS a 4, and Yao hasn't won anything yet. Ewing didn't win either. You also have to take the rules into account. The NBA wants a more open style of play, thus taking some of the importance away of a dominant big man. I think the Lakers would have won titles without Kareem more so than without Magic. Boston wouldn't have won any titles without Bird. I think the most important thing is having very good basketball players, and Durant is just all around better than Oden. Jordan and Pippen won without a dominant center, playing against dominant centers. Durant and Roy could easily be Jordan and Pippen. With the rule changes, Oden can't really be Shaq anymore, and Roy isn't as lethal as Kobe


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Shaq did not win without Wade or Kobe - but he did get to the finals with 3 different good guards. It is easier to find guards than it is to find a dominant 5. BTW - Wade, Kobe or Penny never made it to the finals without Shaq.

I doubt the Lakers would have won the championships without Kareem or a different very good center. Reminder - Kareem has a ring without Magic. Not so the other way around.

The great Bulls teams of the 90s won without a dominant center - but they had 2 or 3 of the best defensive players on the roster and the greatest offensive player at the time. This is rare. I am not certain Durant can be the defensive presence that MJ was. We already know that Oden is a defensive force.

Bird was amazing - but he did have the Chief (a very good, durable center) and one year also Walton in a backup role.

Also - The Oden/Shaq comparison is a bit problematic - because it seems that Oden has a chance to be a better defensive player than Shaq, he is quicker, and even if he is not the offensive force Shaq was (hard to tell with him playing hurt) - it is not that important thanks to the more open game.

If the Blazers luck into either one of Durant or Oden - it would great. Both are great players with potentially great future. My only point is that if I am the one making the decision to draft one or the other - I am going with Oden. In my opinion he has as much of an upside as Durant - but less of a low side and he is the type of player that is harder to find. If you have to choose between a McLaren F1 or a Ferrari Enzo - you got for the F1 every day of the week. Both are insane, rare, amazing - but there are less F1s.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> It's unfair to compare teams because OSU simply had a better recruiting class. Well, the Lakers did run, the Bulls did as well. Teams like Houston, and the "new" Lakers ran. That's certainly not all they did, but they ran. Teams like Phoenix, Dallas, the Drexler era Blazers all ran and reached either the finals or the conference championship.


Behind every great running team is a great big man...

The Lakers had Kareem, Houston had Hakeem, Phoenix has Amare, Dallas has Nowitsky and the Blazers had Buck Williams. The Bulls are the only real counterexample but they didn't run much anyway.

Looking at that list you've compiled, besides the Bulls and Blazers, none of those teams have/had great swingmen, but they do/did have great big men.

So even if you want to run, Oden is better...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i would love to get either!

Oden then trade for a lower ranked sf: Alando Tucker 6-5 210 SF Wisconsin Sr. Derrick Byars 6-7 225 SG/SF Vand. Sr. or Dominic McGuire 6-8 210 SF Fres.St. Jr. 

Durant the trade for a lower pf, pf/c or c: Aaron Gray 7-1 280 C Pittsburgh Sr., Tiago Splitter 6-11 240 PF Brazil 1985, Kyle Visser 6-11 250 C Wake Forest Sr. or Marc Gasol 7-0 270 C Spain 1985

either way its good for us!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

:biggrin:


Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Behind every great running team is a great big man...
> 
> The Lakers had Kareem, Houston had Hakeem, Phoenix has Amare, Dallas has Nowitsky and the Blazers had Buck Williams. The Bulls are the only real counterexample but they didn't run much anyway.
> 
> ...



Nowitzki, Williams, Stoudemire are all PF's. Hakeem would probably play PF in today's NBA. According to a lot of people on this board we already have a great big man in Zach. I think we already have one...well in a year or so, in Aldridge. 

No great swing men??? The Lakers had Worthy, the Rockets had Clyde, Phoenix has Marion, Dallas has Howard, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers are really the only ones, unless you consider Kobe a swing man


Draft Durant. He's more marketable and will bring in more dollars for the franchise. He's the one player that could help fix the broken financial model that is our beloved Blazers :biggrin:


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Draft Durant. He's more marketable and will bring in more dollars for the franchise. He's the one player that could help fix the broken financial model that is our beloved Blazers :biggrin:


not that i don't like Durant because i do, but i couldn't care less if he's marketable. i agree that Durant will likely be more marketable than oden, and that in turn might bring in more money for the blazers. but i think oden will be a more impact player. oden will bring in more wins. more wins = more money for the franchise. bottom line is, i as a fan, cares only about winning. let paul allen and his financial advisers worry about making money. and as far as players marketability, let the players agents worry about that.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> i would love to get either!
> 
> Oden then trade for a lower ranked sf: Alando Tucker 6-5 210 SF Wisconsin Sr. Derrick Byars 6-7 225 SG/SF Vand. Sr. or Dominic McGuire 6-8 210 SF Fres.St. Jr.
> 
> ...


i really hope you're joking. draft oden and then trade down for tucker? draft Durant then trade down for Gray, who i think will be a career backup?

thank God you're not Pritchard.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

you read it wrong its draft oden or durant then trade up to the others


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> you read it wrong its draft oden or durant then trade up to the others


okay. my apologies. so you're suggesting we trade our later picks and move up to draft those players? if that's the case, i'd be all for it. except, i have different players i'd rather draft in mind.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well i went late first round early 2nd since i figure it would be where we would be able to trade up to because I doubt doubt we could trade for a mid 1st pick. But, if that is the case that we could get a mid1st i would draft Corey Brewer 6-8 185 SF Florida Jr.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

BuckW4GM said:


> i really hope you're joking. draft oden and then trade down for tucker? draft Durant then trade down for Gray, who i think will be a career backup?
> 
> thank God you're not Pritchard.


I'd be fine with that. I'd probably just get rid of Tucker/Gray soon anyway. Getting Oden/Durant would be worth it if we were able to keep the nucleus of our team together for it.

EDIT: And for the record, I don't think getting either of those players is really a possibility.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> Nowitzki, Williams, Stoudemire are all PF's. Hakeem would probably play PF in today's NBA. According to a lot of people on this board we already have a great big man in Zach. I think we already have one...well in a year or so, in Aldridge.
> ...


I don't give a rat's *** whether you call a guy a PF or a C. They're great big men... I think we're calling players that would have been C's PF's these days.

As far as Aldridge, maybe he'll be an all-star. Oden though is pretty much a guaranteed superstar. Having both would be incredible.

I'll take either one, but I think the team is more dominant with a dominant frontcourt and good swingmen vs a good frontcourt and dominant swingmen...


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Oden or Durant. Give me either one and I will be equally happy.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Durant's a great player, no doubt.
> 
> But there's a reason Ohio State has been so dominant and Texas hasn't - and that's inside presence.
> 
> I'd pick Oden over Durant 99 times out of 100 regardless of what type of player I thought I needed that day.



If LMA had stayed at Texas... a Durant and LMA frontcourt would be awesome

OSU has a better all around team to make Oden dominant

Oden is a rarity, but Durant is pretty special as well

We need both....


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think it's silly how some posters suggest that teams would rather have the second pick then the first so they don't have to make the decision. I doubt that there is a single GM in the league that would rather have the second pick. I have my opinion on who I would want and my guess is that every GM has theirs. When a team get's the first pick (if they are both in the draft) the GM and all his staff will get together and discuss, review tape and argue until one players attributes seem to outweigh the others. 

Also, I think the nice thing about this draft is there are two greats, so even if you make the wrong choice, you will still likely in good standing and most people will not fault the decision.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Nowitzki, Williams, Stoudemire are all PF's. Hakeem would probably play PF in today's NBA. According to a lot of people on this board we already have a great big man in Zach. I think we already have one...well in a year or so, in Aldridge.
> 
> No great swing men??? The Lakers had Worthy, the Rockets had Clyde, Phoenix has Marion, Dallas has Howard, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers are really the only ones, unless you consider Kobe a swing man


Duncan is a 4, but Stoudemire isn't a center? And Marion is a swing man? You seem to just call people whatever positions you want, independent of skill set and/or what position they actually PLAY.

And Howard is a "great" swing man?

Man. You are smoking some serious crack or your being wildly disingenuous.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

On topic: I like Wright at the 3 spot (behind Durant, of course). I don't have strong preferences beyond that.

But to Thornton-lovers: the dude is 23 years old. He's less than two months *older* than Jack. He's about a year younger than Outlaw. SHOULDN'T he be dominating college if he's a prospect?

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Duncan is a 4, but Stoudemire isn't a center? And Marion is a swing man? You seem to just call people whatever positions you want, independent of skill set and/or what position they actually PLAY.
> 
> And Howard is a "great" swing man?
> 
> ...


Amare plays center, but probably wouldn't in any other offense, Marion wouldn't be a PF in any other offense either. Howard although not great DID make the all star team in the western conference.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> If LMA had stayed at Texas... a Durant and LMA frontcourt would be awesome
> 
> OSU has a better all around team to make Oden dominant
> 
> ...





> need (nēd) Pronunciation Key
> n.
> A condition or situation in which something is required or wanted: crops in need of water; a need for affection.
> Something required or wanted; a requisite: "Those of us who led the charge for these women's issues ... shared a common vision in the needs of women" (Olympia Snowe).
> ...


T-bob, I'm thinking that last statement works better as something like "We _could use_ both" or "Wouldn't it be nice if...." 

They'll end up going to two different teams. And know what? During the entire time they play, there will be other teams in contention the whole way. Sure they may be the best players since James but then what are the Cavs doing?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

agreed

I am just greedy


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> agreed
> 
> I am just greedy


Fair enough. :biggrin: 

Just be aware that saying we "need" them both potentially makes it sound like you don't think the Blazers can win anything without them, which, knowing you, isn't what you mean at all. But for anyone new to the board, it could be confusing.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Amare plays center, but probably wouldn't in any other offense, Marion wouldn't be a PF in any other offense either. Howard although not great DID make the all star team in the western conference.


Amare and Marion might play different positions in different offenses, but they would also be less effective anywhere besides Phoenix, so you're screwed either way.

I guess I'm just biased for big men - and Oden in particular. 

Having a dominant frontcourt automatically puts you into contention.

Having a dominant backcourt - not so much...


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

There's a buffet of SF's this year. I think they two key requirements for being able to play on this Blazer team are:

1. You have to be able to hit your open jump shots.
2. You have to be a good defender.

We simply can't afford any more players lacking in those categories. And no more "raw but really athletic types".

I think Corey Brewer may be the best fit for our team. A lock down defender, who is athletic and good in transition. He's not a big scorer and won't try to put up a bunch of shots, but we have enough scorers right now I think.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Let's get the best player available. I don't care what position they play. Drafting by position is why we wasted picks on Telfair and Webster in the recent past.

I'm hoping Brandon Wright slips to us somehow. It's a long shot but maybe some other guys leapfrog him on the draft board and we can get him where we draft. He and LaMarcus would be a dominant front court on offense and defense.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

"I don't know if there is a more fundamentally sound player of his size in the country."

CBS on Green.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I think Brewer is very realistic, given where we are drafting- but this is all premature. We need to see the tournament!!


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think the Blazers should try and trade down. LA Clippers have two 1st round picks that are likley top 18. I would give up our pick(5-8) for LAC's 2 picks. Then target Corey Brewer/Al Thornton and Josh McRoberts. Maby S&T Outlaw to get it done.

Corey Brewer may not be a all-star, but he has the talent to be a all-defensive player. He is simply a great all around player with world class defense. Thornton I also like. He is great athletically and can score. Thing is, I believe Brewer would put up the #'s Thornton does if he played on as crappy a team as Al. The 2 year age difference is also a big deal.

I know alot of people dont like McRoberts, but he is exactly what this team needs down low. He doesnt demand the ball much, which is good with two offensivley talented big men already on the team. He is also a phenominal passer, I would rank him ahead of Noah and Hawes. He is a great defender, and a phenominal shot blocker. Athletically, he is as good as LaMarcus. No joke, he is the most athletic white big man since Chris Anderson. Lastly, he has great form to his jumper. He misses alot of shots, but with his form he will eventually start hitting. McRoberts is one of those players who is definatley going to be a better NBA player than college player. 


PG- Sergio Rodriguez/Jarrett Jack
SG- Brandon Roy/Ime Udoka
SF- Corey Brewer/Martell Webster
PF- Zach Randolph/Josh McRoberts
C- LaMarcus Aldridge/Joel Pryzbilla


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think the Blazers should try and trade down. LA Clippers have two 1st round picks that are likley top 18. I would give up our pick(5-8) for LAC's 2 picks. Then target Corey Brewer/Al Thornton and Josh McRoberts. Maby S&T Outlaw to get it done.


I don't think that we should do this. We need more top-tier prospects, and we're much more likely to get them at the 7 or 8 spot than in the teens.

Adding three rookies this past year made sense, since our cupboard was SO bare. This upcoming season we have a lot of young guys already, as well as a lot of guys under contract overall, and we should focus on adding a single high-level prospect, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think the Blazers should try and trade down. LA Clippers have two 1st round picks that are likley top 18.


I'm seeing that they only have one pick around #17. Am I looking at something different than you?


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think the Blazers should try and trade down.


It's an unusual and intriguing idea, at least coming from a fan. Most fans only think of trying to trade up, though the obvious reality is that for every trade up there's a trade down (or out, like with the Roy/Telfair deal).

That said, I think this team is more in need of an A level player than it is a pair of Bs. I recognize that many think this is going to be a hugely deep draft even apart from what Durant and Oden do. _If_ that pans out, then yeah, maybe it's worth trying to find two potentially A level players rather than one but I'm not sure I'd chance it.

I feel like this team is really only one player away, at nearly any position, from seriously contending. And as much confidence as I have in Pritchard and company, I'd have to think they've got a better chance of finding that one player with a single higher pick than with a couple of lower picks, though maybe I'm wrong. It'd be interesting to get his candid thoughts about it.

edit -- Ed beat me to it but yeah, what he said.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

They way I see it in this draft, after Durant, Oden and Wright the talent levels off. Some would include Julian Wright in that category, but I personally do not. If I had to choose between one of Wright, Horford, Hawes or two of Brewer, Young, Thornton, Hibbert, McRoberts I would choose the two.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I don't know much about the guys in this draft, but if we could somehow trade our pick (assuming it's not a lotto winner) for a still-young vet SF like a re-signed Gerald Wallace or Rashard Lewis, that would be swell with me.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> That said, I think this team is more in need of an A level player than it is a pair of Bs.


I think if KP pulled the trigger on the deal, it wouldn't be because he thought that he was getting two B's instead of an A. It'd be because the A that he had his eye on fell far enough that he could get a B as well as the A.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> I think if KP pulled the trigger on the deal, it wouldn't be because he thought that he was getting two B's instead of an A. It'd be because the A that he had his eye on fell far enough that he could get a B as well as the A.


I don't think that would be the thinking.

Portland would picking for another team or giving up the player that they wanted... how could they know at that point that an "A" would be available?

Unless, of course, there are a dozen or so players all on about the same level. I doubt that would be the thinking of the Blazers in the draft.

I suppose it depends on how far we drop down... 9 to 11? I can see that an "A" they'd want could still probably be there. 7 to 15? I think that a trade like that would be for depth (two "B" players)... which would be a mistake.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I think if KP pulled the trigger on the deal, it wouldn't be because he thought that he was getting two B's instead of an A. It'd be because the A that he had his eye on fell far enough that he could get a B as well as the A.


Yeah, I could see that, as a draft-day deal. Even so, as Ed's pointed out, there are only so many roster spots. That's not a reason to not do the deal if you can, of course -- just another complication as it potentially commits them to creating a 2 for 1 or 3 for 2 deal later just to make room for the new draft picks.

Regardless, it'll likely be an interesting draft.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:



> Unless, of course, there are a dozen or so players all on about the same level.


That's what I'm saying.

There was one 8-deep tier last year, then after Gay it dropped off a bit. This year the second tier goes from about 3 to 6, and the third (which is about the same as the first tier last year) going until... I don't know, 13 or 14. Then there's a significant drop off making the draft top-heavy this year.

But if Pritchard's guy fell from 8 down to 12 and he did a swap, I'm not sure the guy he would have gotten at 8 would be significantly better than the guy at 12. That's what I meant. And you're right, once you start talking about guys at 14-18, you get into that 'B' range.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Samuel said:


> And you're right, once you start talking about guys at 14-18, you get into that 'B' range.


More than that, it seems like, generally speaking, the deeper one goes in the draft the luckier you have to be to have a guy reach even that B level performance. Sure there are guys who become A level players who get found in the second round but, well... it'd be interesting to see stats from the last few years matching where they were picked and how they've panned out. I'm more than willing to bet that guys like Rodriguez (who looks good but can't yet be claimed to've panned out as I'm thinking of it) are the exception.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Draft Durant. He's more marketable and will bring in more dollars for the franchise. He's the one player that could help fix the broken financial model that is our beloved Blazers :biggrin:


If Durant is such a great player, you'd think he'd be able to carry a team to the Sweet 16.

Andrew Bogut was able to carry a lower seeded, less talented Utah team to the Sweet 16...

Bogut couldn't carry Oden's jock.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If Durant is such a great player, you'd think he'd be able to carry a team to the Sweet 16.
> 
> Andrew Bogut was able to carry a lower seeded, less talented Utah team to the Sweet 16...
> 
> Bogut couldn't carry Oden's jock.



I was a bit dissapointed with Durant's performance in settling for 3s and jump shots. He should have attacked more, but he is only a freshman. He's still the second best player in this upcoming draft assuming Oden declares.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If Durant is such a great player, you'd think he'd be able to carry a team to the Sweet 16.


It's pretty amazing that Texas did as well as they did with the number of freshmen they had playing heavy minutes. USC was the more experienced team yesterday. 

Give the guy a break. The guy had 30 points and 9 rebounds. There's only so much one player can do.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Outside of Durant and D.J. Agustine, that Texas team sucks. They lost their 3 best players last year.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Samuel said:


> It's pretty amazing that Texas did as well as they did with the number of freshmen they had playing heavy minutes. USC was the more experienced team yesterday.
> 
> Give the guy a break. The guy had 30 points and 9 rebounds. There's only so much one player can do.


Ohio State has a lot of freshman playing heavy minutes as well...

Obviously Durant's good. But I'll give him a break when people stop claiming he's the better prospect over Oden.

It may be boring to dominate on defense and out muscle people inside, but it goes a lot further towards wins than hitting a lot of threes and getting beaten on defense.

I just get annoyed with the folks who make outrageous claims such as Durant being the "best freshman ever" or "best college player ever", when he can't play defense and he can't seem to make his teammates look good despite his dominant play. 

It's possible that his teammates really are that bad, but it's also possible that he's not a very good team player... 

He could have gone anywhere, why go to Texas if they're supposedly such a bad team minus him? 

So he could get all the shots and sneak his way to #1?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> If Durant is such a great player, you'd think he'd be able to carry a team to the Sweet 16.
> 
> Andrew Bogut was able to carry a lower seeded, less talented Utah team to the Sweet 16...
> 
> Bogut couldn't carry Oden's jock.


Oden certainly didn't "carry" his team to a Sweet 16 either. His team was down about 7 points when he fouled out late against Xavier and if it wasn't for a missed free throw and a prayer of a 3 pointer by Ron Lewis, Ohio St. would be sitting at home right now. So faulting Durant for not carrying his team, when Oden didn't carry his team to anything either is interesting logic to say the least.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Oden certainly didn't "carry" his team to a Sweet 16 either. His team was down about 7 points when he fouled out late against Xavier and if it wasn't for a missed free throw and a prayer of a 3 pointer by Ron Lewis, Ohio St. would be sitting at home right now. So faulting Durant for not carrying his team, when Oden didn't carry his team to anything either is interesting logic to say the least.


Not sure why you're trying to bring FACTS into this...

Seriously though, I realize that Ohio State has a better supporting cast, but if you put Oden on that Texas team against USC instead of Durant. I doubt they get blown out by 20.

It's one thing to lose a heartbreaker, but to get blown off the court like that was disappointing. He put up some nice looking numbers but he obviously wasn't doing what needed to be done to keep his team in the game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Not sure why you're trying to bring FACTS into this...
> 
> Seriously though, I realize that Ohio State has a better supporting cast, but if you put Oden on that Texas team against USC instead of Durant. I doubt they get blown out by 20.
> 
> It's one thing to lose a heartbreaker, but to get blown off the court like that was disappointing. He put up some nice looking numbers but he obviously wasn't doing what needed to be done to keep his team in the game.


Oden didn't lead his team to anything and thats the only fact that I know. I like Oden, in fact I'd probably rather take him over Durant at this point, but to fault Durant for not leading his team when Oden didn't lead his team to anything himself is jaded. Especially when comparing the two players and comparing the rosters.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Oden didn't lead his team to anything and thats the only fact that I know. I like Oden, in fact I'd probably rather take him over Durant at this point, but to fault Durant for not leading his team when Oden didn't lead his team to anything himself is jaded. Especially when comparing the two players and comparing the rosters.


Well just call me Jadey the Jaded Jade Man.

I realize it's a bit cold. I'll admit to a bit of trolling if you'll indulge me. I rather enjoy the Oden/Durant debate and was sad to see that it had slipped down so far...

Cheers.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Oden >>>> Durant


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Ohio State has a lot of freshman playing heavy minutes as well...


Yeah, they also pulled in one of the finest recruiting classes in the last decade (Cook, Conley, Lighty). Ohio State is a much better team than Texas. I think Texas was ranked in the polls mostly (if not entirely) because of Durant. Ohio State would have been there with or without Oden.



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Obviously Durant's good. But I'll give him a break when people stop claiming he's the better prospect over Oden.


That doesn't make much sense, but okay. 



Blazer Ringbearer said:


> It may be boring to dominate on defense and out muscle people inside, but it goes a lot further towards wins than hitting a lot of threes and getting beaten on defense.


That may be true, but I think you're overlooking how rare it is to find a guy of Durant's size with his mobility and skillset. Not only can he 'hit a lot of threes', but he can post his man, take it strong to the rim, draw fouls, whatever... Just because you're trying to make a point doesn't mean you need to undersell him.



> I just get annoyed with the folks who make outrageous claims such as Durant being the "best freshman ever" or "best college player ever", when he can't play defense and he can't seem to make his teammates look good despite his dominant play.


A few things. First of all, the people who are calling him the best freshman/college player ever are opposing coaches and players, not just people in the blogosphere. These are people who know more about basketball than you and I. I can't remember the last time a freshman posted those types of numbers and in the fashion that he has.

And secondly, his defense isn't that bad. Where are you getting this?



> It's possible that his teammates really are that bad, but it's also possible that he's not a very good team player...


He's a freshman. He's younger than Martell freaking Webster. The fact that you're expecting Kobe-types of things out of him seems to dignify the argument you're trying to disprove.



> He could have gone anywhere, why go to Texas if they're supposedly such a bad team minus him?
> 
> So he could get all the shots and sneak his way to #1?


Durant would have played heavy minutes and gotten a lot of shots on any team. Ask anyone.

Look, even with Durant's production, Oden may be the better prospect. But you can't deny that Durant makes a very compelling argument to be selected #1.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

durant>oden

i just hope we get one of them


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Oden=Durant. 

Give me either.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Outside of Durant and D.J. Agustine, that Texas team sucks. They lost their 3 best players last year.


close. we lost our 5 best players and 7 of our top 8.

i would love to see lamarcus and durant team up. but not for another couple years.


----------

