# Rasheed Wallace... kryptonite



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

I see ya'll have had some pretty hearty debates on this one, but I felt I had to throw in my 2 cents although I always feel like I'm in enemy water's whenever I'm in the closely knit Blazer forum, telling some of the most faithful fan's in sports what to do with their team.

Portland should *BLOW UP*, I honestly hope the new GM realizes this. Sheed, Bonzi and the rest of your crew are trouble. Championship's aren't won with the current team you have assembled, discipline, dedication and right mind are vital. Rasheed Wallace COULD be the most talented forward in the NBA, he can work in the weight room all day long, this whole summer, and come out in great physical shape. The rest of the Blazer's could too. Don't expect anything to chnage. It's the mentality of your players that disturbs me. Get rid of Patterson, see if you can get anything for Sheed and Bonzi, that's the mindset new GM needs. Sure Rasheed cooled down considerably this year, but he never was and never will be a franchise player, no matter how much hope you place upon him. Does Sheed really give a damn about winning? He is one player that really knows how to dissapear when he need's to...

Zach Randolph is a player I like. Sure the critics got excited when he dominated the hollow Dallas post game, but the kid has heart and he is the kind of *role player* you want on a championship team. I know this will be tough for most of you to agree with, but what Kiki Vanderweghe did is what ya'll should be aiming to do. 

2003 NBA Draft, Portland took Travis Outlaw... Now they are hoping this athletic freak can become a contributor in the future along with Qyntel and Randolph, he obviously cannot contribute now. I just felt that Nbudi Ebi or Carlos Delfino would have been better suited in term's of talent, but I haven't seen Outlaw play so can't make any judgement's on that pick.


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

*avatar question*

hey-is your avatar Cook?

BTW-no, we don't need to blow-we just need to make some adjustments.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> I know this will be tough for most of you to agree with, but what Kiki Vanderweghe did is what ya'll should be aiming to do.


You want us to find a crappy team and make it (arguably) slightly less crappy? As far as I can see that's all Kiki has done so far. 

Or did you mean we should get a crappy team and get good press anyway? That I must admit is an accomplishment of Kiki's.



> I just felt that Nbudi Ebi or Carlos Delfino would have been better suited in term's of talent, but I haven't seen Outlaw play so can't make any judgement's on that pick.


But you just did make a judgement on the pick.

barfo


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

We should just make a sticky thread where people who don't like the Blazers can come in whenever they want and say how they think it'd be best for the team to be blown up...

Ed O.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Not gonna happen , only minor changes will be made, Rasheed is not trouble , People want to assume he is .


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I am split on weather we should blow the team up or now...

I am not mad about this like Ed O. I would much rather have a guy like The Franchise come in and present his thoughts about this team. He was NOT ripping on the team at all


----------



## m_que01 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: avatar question*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> hey-is your avatar Cook?
> 
> BTW-no, we don't need to blow-we just need to make some adjustments.


actually bfan1 his avator is Sebastian Telfair. He is gonna be the best HS basketball next year. But i'm sure he's not gonna get as much  like Lebron did this year.


I'm sure that it would be a bad move for the blazers to rebuild, there would be a lot of fans that would be upset due to the losing seasons. :upset:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> I am split on weather we should blow the team up or now...
> 
> I am not mad about this like Ed O. I would much rather have a guy like The Franchise come in and present his thoughts about this team. He was NOT ripping on the team at all


I'm not mad, and I don't think he was ripping the team. I don't know why you think that that is what I felt.

It's just that we've heard this 100 times from people who watch the Blazers 10 or 12 times a year and while I found The Franchise's points well laid-out, having a single thread where people could post the same thing might save them effort from having to start a new thread and us from reading it.

But of course I'm joking. No "blow 'em up" ghetto should actually exist.

Ed O.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

It's a question of playing NOW with your cast and improvements, making the playoffs, keep the general crowd happy but still continue bickering.

Every team wants to be great, everybody wants the Glory, no one wants to be a Portland. I'm sorry I had to say that, as insensitive as it was, ya'll have to realize that this is not a championship team, and adding a little here and there won't help them push past the barrier. You have to get past Kobe, Duncan soon Yao, Webber and you expect to do it with the unfaithful's? Clean house, the profits they lose will be made up by the fact that they don't pay close to $40 million in luxury tax. The Blazer fan's are great, they'll come back... It's a risky thing to do, losing the dirty dozen, and if it happens ya'll will hate it, but IMO you will be closer to the championship trying to get a rising star via 2005 free agency that you will be with the current crew. Where will the upside come from? I'm guessing you've argued over this before, but atleast show me an argument.

Barfo -- Ya I guess I did make a judgement. I have nothing against Outlaw, everything I know about Outlaw, Ebi and Delfino is from words that I have read.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> It's a risky thing to do, losing the dirty dozen, and if it happens ya'll will hate it, but IMO you will be closer to the championship trying to get a rising star via 2005 free agency that you will be with the current crew.


2005 is two years away. Why should we blow up the team now? What advantage is gained in doing so now as opposed to later? 

barfo


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

My increasingly usual reply to folks who think the Blazers are soooo far from a championship is that this year the series with the Mavs went 7 games even with several very key injuries. I'd say this team was realistically a Gary Payton away from taking that series in fewer than 7 games. Then look how well the Mavs did. Had Dirk not gotten hurt they might well be champions right now.

All that said, there are all sorts of good reasons to move several players on the team. But, it certainly seems to me that changes can be at least somewhat gradual and, as part of the problem is that there are (arguably) too many "troubled" guys for one team, they're all potentially nice fits on other teams. The Mavs, for example, could sure use a guy like Patterson, and, for me personally, he's the biggest PR problem. 'Sheed is certainly more central to what's going on but at least he's never (that we know of) beaten up a guy over a scratched car nor is he a registered sex offender. Still, I'm certain there will be interest in Patterson and even more in 'Sheed. Changes do need to be made but it's hardly something to "blow up" in my opinion.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> Zach Randolph is a player I like. Sure the critics got excited when he dominated the hollow Dallas post game, but the kid has heart and he is the kind of *role player* you want on a championship team. I know this will be tough for most of you to agree with, but what Kiki Vanderweghe did is what ya'll should be aiming to do.
> .



Randolph is going to be more than just a Role player imo. I know it was just Dallas, but he was our go-to-guy in that series. If he's a Role player, so is Yao mIng.


----------



## Saxon_guy (Jan 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> Not gonna happen , only minor changes will be made, Rasheed is not trouble , People want to assume he is .


Agreed. :yes:


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Hey, I agree with 'the franchise'. For a start, I think you guys have got to get rid of Sheed, Damon and Patterson...

Rebuild around guys like Randolph and bring in players who actually care and want to give it their all to win. 

The way I see it is that you tried spending a lot of money to build a championship team, but all you've got is a team full of bad attitudes that loses early in the playoffs. Sure, it won't be as fun if the team doesn't make the playoffs, but, in the long-term the teams image and play will be better. 

Just my :twocents:


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

its not like i wish this blazer organization to blow up or something, but with paul allen's current managing methods, soon or later, the blazers will BLOW UP !!!!!!!
at a certain point of time, something serious will happen among this group, either something bad gonna happen (like one shooting at another among teammates) or some internal power struggle leads to a total meltdown inside the team.

they need to bring some positive influence into this team and do a complete makeover, you cant keep wasting billion of dollars just to bring in talents without consider their potential side effects and presence to team's image


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>.</b>!
> its not like i wish this blazer organization to blow up or something, but with paul allen's current managing methods, soon or later, the blazers will BLOW UP !!!!!!!
> at a certain point of time, something serious will happen among this group, either something bad gonna happen (like one shooting at another among teammates) or some internal power struggle leads to a total meltdown inside the team.
> 
> they need to bring some positive influence into this team and do a complete makeover, you cant keep wasting billion of dollars just to bring in talents without consider their potential side effects and presence to team's image


get rid of all head cases like damon, patterson etc etc and bring in some positive influence to influent sheed and nurture him, make sure he stays in track and all, all this problem exist because you have a group of bad weeds mixing up together, thats where all the trouble came from, its about time someone dress the issue


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

It's really easy for Rocket and Sonic fan's to come in here and say Portland should do this or do that. Yet, why is it that Portland has been a better team than both of them for the past several years? It appears to me that Portland seems to know what they are doing a lot better than the folks of those teams.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Folks, this isn't rocket science.:rocket: 

There are 29 (soon to be 30) NBA teams. Only *1* can win the title each season.

This leaves everybody else in 2 groups:

A) Fans disappointed their team didn't win.

B) Fans who are indifferent because they believe their team is hopeless.


When you talk about blowing up the team, you are advocating leaving Group "A" to join Group "B". Why? Because of the vague hope that we can someday rejoin group "A"!:krazy: :frenchy: :banghead: 


NO THANK YOU!


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

*Sheed doesnt care?*

I wish people would stop saying, "Bring in some players that care." You dont get 50 wins, go down 3-0 and then win 3 straight in impressive fashion to force a game 7, and have your best player (Sheed Wallace) not care. He cares and shows alot of heart on the court. Some people dont watch the games and just read the media headlines of Rasheed.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Oldmangrouch</b>!
> Folks, this isn't rocket science.:rocket:
> 
> There are 29 (soon to be 30) NBA teams. Only *1* can win the title each season.
> ...


Well put. I'd add that you only win championships out of Group A. You don't win a championship from Group B. So, taking the team, voluntarily, from Group A to Group B is simply prolonging the lack of titles until you drag it back up to Group A again...which is where it already is.

Change for the sake of change is worthless.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Sheed doesnt care?*



> Originally posted by <b>marshall</b>!
> I wish people would stop saying, "Bring in some players that care." You dont get 50 wins, go down 3-0 and then win 3 straight in impressive fashion to force a game 7, and have your best player (Sheed Wallace) not care. He cares and shows alot of heart on the court. Some people dont watch the games and just read the media headlines of Rasheed.


The 3 games won "in impressive fashion" were because Z. Randolph finally got some minutes. It's no coincidence that in the first 3 losses, Randolph put up 4, 3 and 8 ponits, then in the 3 wins he put up 25, 22 and 21 points. You didn't win those games 'cos Sheed cared....:no:


----------



## marshall (Jun 18, 2003)

We didnt lose because Sheed doesnt care. That is a stupid point to make about why we should trade him. Say he's lazy, loves to disappear (which i disagree with), is a knuckle-head.....just dont throw out that he doesnt care. He didnt have the best series he could have, but after watching Dirk play all year Rasheed did an excellent job defending him. And had a good 12 point 4th quarter in Game 7 after a scoreless 1st half. Just facts that might be meaningless but to me prove some of these points wrong.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Sheed doesnt care?*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> The 3 games won "in impressive fashion" were because Z. Randolph finally got some minutes. It's no coincidence that in the first 3 losses, Randolph put up 4, 3 and 8 ponits, then in the 3 wins he put up 25, 22 and 21 points. You didn't win those games 'cos Sheed cared....:no:


That may be true. But then again, we didn't lose the first three because Sheed didn't care. 

He doesn't care about many things: fan perception, endorsement deals, toeing somebody else's line. But he does care about the game of basketball and he cares about winning. You clearly haven't seen the man play enough if you believe he doesn't care.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Saying that Sheed doesn't care is just plain stupid. He is probably more guilty of being too unselfish more than anything else. People seem to equate his unselfishness with being lazy or not caring. Why do you think he goes nuts sometimes out there? He just wants to win and shows his frustration at times...and he has greatly improved in this category. Someone stating that he doesn't care has no validity whatsoever in my book. Those same people must not watch the Blazers very much. It's easy to join the bandwagon of national media to demonize Sheed and make up garbage.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PorterIn2004</b>!
> My increasingly usual reply to folks who think the Blazers are soooo far from a championship is that this year the series with the Mavs went 7 games even with several very key injuries. I'd say this team was realistically a Gary Payton away from taking that series in fewer than 7 games. Then look how well the Mavs did. Had Dirk not gotten hurt they might well be champions right now.


I keep sayin the same thing. Nobody seems to acknowledge this though. I keep getting vague statements like "the Spurs and Lakers are gonna be a lot better next year" with no explanation as to how. Repeated statements about how we're a bunch of head cases. Sheed's not mature enough to ever win a championship, ever!


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Had Webber not gotten hurt the Mavs would have been blown out, and you can go on arguing like that. The fact is Portland was a long way away from the championship, and registering as new users just so you can give me a 1 rating won't stop me from telling you that even if you get Gary Payton, Western Conference Semi-Finals will be the farthest a team without a superstar can go. But who knows, Sheed, Bonzi or maybe even Randolph can develop into 1.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> The fact is Portland was a long way away from the championship, and registering as new users just so you can give me a 1 rating won't stop me from telling you that even if you get Gary Payton, Western Conference Semi-Finals will be the farthest a team without a superstar can go.


The fact is that it is only your opinion that Portland was a long ways from a championship, and that a team without a guy worthy of "superstar" status (again in your eyes) can make it past the WCF. I see no actual facts in your statement. Anything can happen right? While I respect your opinion, I don't think it's any more valid then anyone else's, and it certainly isn't the same as mine. I hope thats OK.

BTW, I doubt that people are so petty as to want to knock down your user rating by registering as new users, and who cares what you're rated anyways? Your words matter more then how many stars are by your name IMO.

Thanks for stopping by, come back anytime.

STOMP


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> The fact is that it is only your opinion that Portland was a long ways from a championship, and that a team without a guy worthy of "superstar" status (again in your eyes) can make it past the WCF. I see no actual facts in your statement. Anything can happen right? While I respect your opinion, I don't think it's any more valid then anyone else's, and it certainly isn't the same as mine. I hope thats OK.
> ...


I don't think a team can win a championship without a "superstar" either. I agree with Franchise, and I'll give some facts for him 

Since 1990-91, four teams have won the NBA finals. Chicago, Houston, San Antonio and the LA Lakers. If you look at those teams, they each had at least 1 "superstar". The Bulls had Jordan and Pippen, Houston had Hakeem Olajuwon, San Antonio had Tim Duncan and David Robinson, the Lakers had Kobe and Shaq.

I know anthing can happen, but it's really hard to win a 7 game series with no 'go to guys' and consistent role players.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> I know anthing can happen, but it's really hard to win a 7 game series with no 'go to guys' and consistent role players.


Which team came closest?

Portland. About 15 minutes away from blowing out the Pacers in the Finals.

I agree that it's HARDER for a team without superstars to win championships in the NBA, but it's also harder for a team without any superstars to win 50 games, and Portland does that every season, or to make a conference finals, and Portland did that twice in the Rasheed Wallace era.

Ed O.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Teams without a go to guy are crippled down the stretch by the teams that have one. Of course you can always hope one of the player's will step up and take over, but it is a tough call to make. Whereas a team with a designated go to guy, everybody knows the plan, they know what the play will form around, and can concentrate on other matter's, not on whether they should step it up or not. Like The Rock says, "Know your role and shut your mouth." That's how championship's are won.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> ...I think you guys have got to get rid of Sheed, Damon and Patterson...
> 
> Rebuild around guys like Randolph and bring in players who actually care and want to give it their all to win.


:yes: :banana: :cbanana: :gbanana:


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> :yes: :banana: :cbanana: :gbanana:


Thanks Trader Bob, I'm glad someone picked up on the message I was trying to get across 

I don't hate the Blazers, it's just hard trying to get a point across to die-hard fans. I think that's all guys like me and Franchise try to do


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

they seriously need to start thinking about a make over, if not, look for them to drop out of playoffs within 2 years, remember what they did against the lakers in the final ?? they were never the same after that, as a matter of fact, they did worse year after year, go figure.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

The Blazers can win 50 games a year no problem. The only thing Paul Allen can buy is Talent. He can't buy Chemistry! That's why you guys are 40 million over the Luxury cap! You tried to buy a championship. The main reason we even have a luxury cap is because of teams like you Portland, Dallas, NY, and Sacramento throwing money around like nothing! 

The Blazers WILL NOT WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP with your current lineup!!! Sheed is a very unselfish player, and because of that reason alone he is NOT a go to guy! Ruben P is a cancer, and as far as attitude goes, Bonzi is a wanna-be Rasheed, only 6' shorter, Damon is a short little joke of a PG who doesn't pass and can't shoot. The most consistant guys you have/had (Besides Zach) are probably gone Pippen/Sabonis. 

How are you gonna win when Sheed passes the ball up? 
How long will it take you guys to figure that out?


Somebody mentioned that the Blazers are better than Houston and Seattle, and with the talent you have YOU SHOULD BE!!!

Talent isn't the problem, it's because the teams management is stubborn, out of touch, and out of state (Blazers REAL head office is on Mercer Island in WASHINGTON outside Seattle)
I can't beleive it took this long to get rid of Whitsit. The Blazers will make the playoffs with this lineup no problem, but once you get in the playoffs, without any chemistry your talent will only take you so far. In The playoffs it's Talent AND chemistry AND a go to guy!!!!. 

You Guys only have 1/3 of the job finished!!!


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> The Blazers can win 50 games a year no problem. The only thing Paul Allen can buy is Talent. He can't buy Chemistry!


_I don't care too much for money,
cause money can't buy me chemistry._



> That's why you guys are 40 million over the Luxury cap! You tried to buy a championship. The main reason we even have a luxury cap is because of teams like you Portland, Dallas, NY, and Sacramento throwing money around like nothing!


Aw, you're jealous. That's so cute.



> The Blazers WILL NOT WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP with your current lineup!!!


Heck, we probably won't even play any more games with our current lineup.



> Somebody mentioned that the Blazers are better than Houston and Seattle, and with the talent you have YOU SHOULD BE!!!


AND WE ARE! All is right with the world!



> The Blazers will make the playoffs with this lineup no problem, but once you get in the playoffs, without any chemistry your talent will only take you so far. In The playoffs it's Talent AND chemistry AND a go to guy!!!!.
> 
> You Guys only have 1/3 of the job finished!!!


Crud. Ok guys, let's get to work. Looks like we didn't win the championship last year after all. I don't know why we were celebrating. Maybe all the talk we've been doing about the Blazer Dynasty was misplaced. Good thing somebody pointed this out.

barfo


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Crud. Ok guys, let's get to work. Looks like we didn't win the championship last year after all. I don't know why we were celebrating. Maybe all the talk we've been doing about the Blazer Dynasty was misplaced. Good thing somebody pointed this out.
> 
> barfo


I don't get the point of this post, you really didn't come up with an answer to anything...you were like a politician dodging a tough question...

"I don't care too much for money,
cause money can't buy me chemistry."

:laugh:

He's right, the Blazers got into the PR mess they are in by not caring about players attitudes and team chemistry....

The Blazer dynasty comment was strange...as I have seen posts on here by PDX fans saying things like "we were close last year if not for injuries" or "we are a GP away...". It may be tough to accept, but he was right...you won't win a ring with the line up as is....:|


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> I don't get the point of this post, you really didn't come up with an answer to anything...you were like a politician dodging a tough question...


Ok, what was the question?
The point of my post was that there was no such question. 



> He's right, the Blazers got into the PR mess they are in by not caring about players attitudes and team chemistry....


You may think that was a brilliant insight on his part, but approximately 134,323 other people have already said that. Those who are inclined to agree with it already agree with it. Those that don't probably never will. 



> The Blazer dynasty comment was strange...as I have seen posts on here by PDX fans saying things like "we were close last year if not for injuries" or "we are a GP away...". It may be tough to accept, but he was right...you won't win a ring with the line up as is....:|


I think I may have been attempting something called 'sarcasm'. Apparently I was unsuccessful in the attempt.

barfo


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Ok, what was the question?
> The point of my post was that there was no such question.


sigh...then why not just simply agree ?



> You may think that was a brilliant insight on his part, but approximately 134,323 other people have already said that. Those who are inclined to agree with it already agree with it. Those that don't probably never will.


I know it's already been said before, and you must know it...so why can't you just agree ? instead of running around it...:no: 




> I think I may have been attempting something called 'sarcasm'. Apparently I was unsuccessful in the attempt.
> 
> barfo


Well, surely you can see how i'd be mistaken with all the optimism i've read on here...


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> The Blazers WILL NOT WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP with your current lineup!!! Sheed is a very unselfish player, and because of that reason alone he is NOT a go to guy! Ruben P is a cancer, and as far as attitude goes, Bonzi is a wanna-be Rasheed, only 6' shorter, Damon is a short little joke of a PG who doesn't pass and can't shoot. The most consistant guys you have/had (Besides Zach) are probably gone Pippen/Sabonis.


Some of that's correct, some not so much. Ruben is gone. He will be traded before the start of training camp next year, so he won't be a factor. Saying that Bonzi is a wanna-be Sheed is simply incorrect. You obviously do not know enough about Bonzi, who will be much better next year playing at the 2 full time. Sabas wasn't a factor last year and everyone and their mother is saying that Pippen will probably resign with us for 2-3 years for 6-7 mil. So I'm not worried about those two.

The one change that could make us a contender is the addition of Gary Payton. He'd be the go-to guy we've needed forever. This would take pressure, both mental and defensive, off of Sheed and Bonzi and probably result in better numbers for the both of them. So if we can get GP I think we've got a chance. If we can't we might as well rebuild.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

*Sheed is not the reason for our losing...*

It is all the stock piling of players that are used to playing time and shots. You take a player like DA from San Antonio that was averaging about 15 shots a game in San Antonio and expect him to shoot about 10 shots a game and be effective. Then you got Bonzi hoisting illadvised perimeter shots and leaving his post-up and slashing game at home.

As for Wallace... I think this is a major problem that Mo had. Wallace is the best shooter on the team, but he is also the best post-up player on the team too. So what do you do when no one is making their shots? You ask Wallace to play shooting guard and jack up as many threes as possible to get your team back into the game. Wallace actually listens to Mo and Mo has asked him to take more outside shots.

I will bet if we can land a pure shooter that can hit the outside shot on a consistant basis, then I would expect Wallace to play inside more.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

I doubt it, Even if Rasheed does play in the post, he'll only pass up the ball in the clutch.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> I don't hate the Blazers, it's just hard trying to get a point across to die-hard fans. I think that's all guys like me and Franchise try to do


So if I understand your point(s), but disagree, then your stategy is to back up and repeat yourself ad nauseam? I don't think you get the point, which is that you just might be wrong. While I'm sure thats never happened before, just pretend that it's a possibility and give a little respect to those who feel different.

If I'm Portland's management, and I've decided that this team isn't going to be able to compete at a championship level anymore, I don't necessarily immediately blow my squad up. I look at the finacial ramifications of trading so and so now as compared to later. Wallace is case in point. If you trade him now, teams have to package 17 million dollars in assets together... if you trade him one year from now in a S&T, you might only need to bring back 11 mil. That opens up a LOT more possibilities of who you can make deals with, as well as lowering Portland's cap figure significantly. I'd love to be able to turn the page on Stoudamire as much as anyone, but I'd rather have him sit and pout another year, rather then bring on some unusable shlub with a huge longterm deal. I believe there are trades that could be made that would rid the team of it's current cast, and not necessarily launch the team directly into the finals behind Zack and co. 

Perhaps you now understand why at least one fan understands, but respectfully disagrees with your point.

STOMP


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Rasheeds Kryptonite is the three point line...he falls apart once he gets inside of it. They need to get a guy he wants so he stays interested. Ruben is a cancer to himself...not the team...who plays harder out on the court. Randolph is about to explode onto the radar...he is a smaller yet more agressive version of Eddie Curry on offense. I think it all comes down to the point guard. Portland lacks leadership in the backcourt. Talent doesn't mean you can lead.

Ill be staying up late again this year hoping for improvement.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

I see what scinos is saying. 

The Blazers have been a joke to the NBA ever since they lost game 7 in 2000.

And FINALLY they realize that there is a problem, a whole THREE years later! If it takes them that long to figure out that there is a problem, then I don't see a championship coming to Portland for a LONG time. 

Biggest problem was Whitsit. (good job on that one)
next is 
Sheed unwilling/unable to lead the team.
a PG (Damon) who is shooting first,(and missing) and passing second.
a Bench that is used to real minutes. (and when those minutes don't come around- those bench players ***** and moan-causing bad chemistry)
Bonzi Wells is under the influence of Rasheed Wallace. 
Paul Allen is so rich he is simply out of touch with reality, and therefore cannot make accurate desisions.
Pippen is too old, and banged up.
Sabonis is too old, and banged up
Ruben Paterson is a convicted felon who should be in jail for rape, assault and spousal abuse.

How many more years until the Blazers figure this one out???


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> I see what scinos is saying.
> 
> The Blazers have been a joke to the NBA ever since they lost game 7 in 2000.
> ...



I see your point, but hey! It could be a lot worse...we could be like the Sonics! extremely mediocre (And that's putting it nicely)


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

I am aware of the Sonics mediocre record. I am also aware of the changes the Sonics Management has made, and it's alot better than Portland's.

The Blazers have hit a plateau, as far as their record goes. It's been that way for YEARS now, and with the slow progress the Blazers have made, i'm sure it will stay the same. 

The "Mediocre" Sonics are a young, young team. (Brent Barry is the oldest player at 31) So I think those days of losing are numbered. I can't say the same thing fot those Portland Trailblazers!!


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> I am aware of the Sonics mediocre record. I am also aware of the changes the Sonics Management has made, and it's alot better than Portland's.
> 
> The Blazers have hit a plateau, as far as their record goes. It's been that way for YEARS now, and with the slow progress the Blazers have made, i'm sure it will stay the same.
> ...


Outside Allen, Lewis...who do they have? Collins? (Poor mans LaFrentz) Ridnour (horrible defender) Radman? (Seems like they've been tryin to ditch him all summer) Seattle to me , seems like one of those team that will always be mediocre, until they luck out in the draft lottory and land a Shaq, or a Duncan type franchise player.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Ray Allen (current All-Star & Team USA Basketball member)
Nick Collison (Team USA Basketball Member)
Rahard Lewis (Up & Coming All-Star)
Brent Barry (Top 5 NBA #3-point shooter and former Slam Dunk Champion)
Vladimir Radmanovic (Won an Olympic Gold Medal with Team Yugoslavia Basketball)
Luke Ridinour (one of 2003 NBA drafts' top point guards)

You can say what you like, but it looks pretty good to me.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> The Blazers have hit a plateau, as far as their record goes. It's been that way for YEARS now, and with the slow progress the Blazers have made, i'm sure it will stay the same.


Yep. Probably we should just plan on another boring 50 win season. 

The sonics, on the other hand, have won 45,44,45,40 games in the last 4 seasons. So I guess they've just left the plateau for the lowlands. Come back and let us know when you win your 50th game, eh?

barfo


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

sure thing, the Sonics will win their 50th game in Feb!!
And your Frailblazers will just be starting it's annual meltdown!!!!!! 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


The Blazers are far from boring, I love reading about all the laws they've broken in the newspaper daily.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*The Sonic's fan's opinion's are accurate*

Very accurate.
But you are wasting your time here.
You see,they think Rasheed is "GOING TO SHOW UP THIS YEAR"
:laugh: 

I guess making the playoffs is not enough to bring out his best? 

Superstar?
nope SUBPAR should be his moniker.:laugh: 

And you are 100% correct to say that since game 7,it's been
all downhill.
Portland has been mired in mediocrity for several years.
Yes ! Portland has won 50 games !
But oh my,they have been capable of so much more.

That's why it is so disappointing.

Without Scottie and Sabas it looks bleak. Sheed,doesn't matter.
They will have to replace their talents with EQUAL TALENT or Portland will slide even further.
Scottie was the absolute glue on this team.

As far as the Sonics,god bless em,they have ALWAYS been an
enjoyable team to watch.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

*Re: The Sonic's fan's opinion's are accurate*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Very accurate.
> But you are wasting your time here.
> You see,they think Rasheed is "GOING TO SHOW UP THIS YEAR"
> ...


Thanks for the kind words Jackal, I had pegged all Blazer fans as spoiled, block-headed simpletons. You're post proved me wrong (Ashame I can't say that about the rest of these pro-Blazer posts) It's good to know that the Blazers have "down to earth" fans like yourself!!! Be careful around those Neandertals at the Rose Garden!!!


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> sure thing, the Sonics will win their 50th game in Feb!!
> And your Frailblazers will just be starting it's annual meltdown!!!!!!
> 
> ...


LMAO, a Sonic fan talkin Junk. Seattle has been mediocre since the days of GP/Kemp ended.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Those GP Sonic days ended last year.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Seattle would make the playoffs (maybe) in the East...but w/o any frontcourt help (Collins?!paleeease) They wont get a sniff of the playoffs until they luck out in the lottory and nab a true bigman.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

It's funny that you're always on the defensive Sioux. Am I correct, when I say that you seem to thing the only reason i'm here is to talk trash about the Blazers? 

It seems like you try to respond with some lowly sonic comment that has no merit regarding the subject we are discussing.

For the record, most NBA teams are trying to nab a bigman, including your Blazers. (Just goes to show that even Allen's deep pockets can't get a legitiamite Center)


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> It's funny that you're always on the defensive Sioux. Am I correct, when I say that you seem to thing the only reason i'm here is to talk trash about the Blazers?
> 
> It seems like you try to respond with some lowly sonic comment that has no merit regarding the subject we are discussing.
> ...


True, but Portland isn't hurting up front as much as Seattle. Wallace,Davis,Randolph... vs. Drobniac (sp? like it matters) James, Booth, Collins....That frontline is pathetic, even to Eastern Conference standards. Yeah, the future is brighter up in Seattle


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> 
> 
> True, but Portland isn't hurting up front as much as Seattle. Wallace,Davis,Randolph... vs. Drobniac (sp? like it matters) James, Booth, Collins....T



Collins? Do you mean Collison? The same Collison that will be on the USA Olympic Team? Yeah, I'm sure the USA team wants a pathetic big man to help them bring back the glory to USA Basketball.
:laugh: Speaking of Olympic B-ballers, Drobnajk has a gold medal as well as Radmanovic. He may not fit that well in the Sonics Frontcourt plans, but Drob is actually a good player. His only weakness is he's a C that plays like a SF. 

Is Wallace on that Olympic team? Will he ever?


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Dale Davis averaged 7.4 points per game last year
Peja Drobnjak averaged 9.4 points per game last year


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Ray Allen (current All-Star & Team USA Basketball member)
> *Nick Collison (Team USA Basketball Member)*
> Rahard Lewis (Up & Coming All-Star)
> ...



While riding major coat tails, he won a Gold medal.

Christian Laettner__won on the USA b-ball team too, he's had a steller career thus far :laugh: 

Brent Won the dunk contest....what was i thinking?! My opinion on him totally changes now


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Riding coat tails? Does Scottie Pippen ring a bell? Pippen rode Jordan's coat tails through out the 90's. (except we he started *****ing all season, the one year Jordan was gone!!)


Yeah, you're right about Christian Laettner did win a gold medal when he was still a Collegiate player. So what, a gold medal, is a gold medal. And that's something Rasheed Wallace will never have!! 

Collison is a much more down to earth person/player than Laettner ever was. And in my opinion, that will be the difference in 10 years when we laugh at Laettner, and continue to watch the consistant Collison in awe


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> 
> 
> Riding coat tails? Does Scottie Pippen ring a bell? Pippen rode Jordan's coat tails through out the 90's. (except we he started *****ing all season, the one year Jordan was gone!!)
> ...


:laugh:
So....are you and your Sonic buddies already thinking about next years draft? You've got to look foward to something..right?


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> So....are you and your Sonic buddies already thinking about next years draft? You've got to look foward to something..right?


As a matter of fact my Sonic buddies, and I (and some former blazer buddies) ARE already thinking about next years draft! ....we can't wait to see who the Blazers pick to rebuild their organization!!!
'Cause sooner or later Allen will wake up and dismatntle this joke of a team!!!


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> While riding major coat tails, he won a Gold medal.
> 
> Christian Laettner__won on the USA b-ball team too, he's had a steller career thus far :laugh:
> ...


Why are you dissing the Sonics players achievements ???? What has the Blazer team achieved ?


Patterson (several felonies including Rape)
Damon (made Page 2's top 10 party animals list! Ranking 7th)
Woods (Showed a police officer his trading card as ID!)
Sheed (Also made Page 2's top 10 party animals list!, ranking 7th)

wow, those are some great achievements


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Siouxperior</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh:
> So....are you and your Sonic buddies already thinking about next years draft? You've got to look foward to something..right?



Don't waste your breath. This is the internet....troll infestations are a sad fact of life. Until a mod shows up and closes the thread, best to just ignore them.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> 
> Riding coat tails? Does Scottie Pippen ring a bell?


Not really, why should one of the greatest players of all-time and by far the best small forward of the decade ring any bells when it comes to riding coat tails?



> Pippen rode Jordan's coat tails through out the 90's.


Oh, another fan who started watching the NBA in 2000. Cool.



> (except we he started *****ing all season, the one year Jordan was gone!!)


I don't think this counts as grammar police...it's fair to note that this is completely unintelligible and garbled. I'd *like* to respond, but it would actually have to make sense.

Maybe rephrase it?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> I don't think this counts as grammar police...it's fair to note that this is completely unintelligible and garbled. I'd *like* to respond, but it would actually have to make sense.
> 
> Maybe rephrase it?


... must ... resist ... commenting ...

Ed O.


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> ... must ... resist ... commenting ...
> ...


hey ed, in your opinion, whos the better overall player, rasheed wallace or jermaine oneal ??


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Why are you dissing the Sonics players achievements ???? What has the Blazer team achieved ?
> ...


lmfao @ woods showed a police officer his trading card as ID buauaauahauhauhauhawauwuauahaahahah oh no oh no MUAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAH, i wonder how long will it take for blazers to get rid of all these trouble makers he he


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>.</b>!
> 
> hey ed, in your opinion, whos the better overall player, rasheed wallace or jermaine oneal ??


Skill-wise, Rasheed Wallace. Easily. Better shooter with more range. Better post moves with his back to the basket. Better lateral quickness defensively. Jermaine's better at putting the ball on the floor and beating people off the dribble and he's a better position rebounder, I think.

Attitude-wise, probably Jermaine O'Neal. He seems to be more driven to improve, but he also seems to be willing to turn on his teammates when things go bad. Rasheed, OTOH, seems so willing to NOT blame his teammates or worry about losses overmuch that it's reportedly turned off (at least some of) his teammates.

Which player would I rather have, salary and teams being equal? Tough call. Jermaine's 4 years younger, so I'd probably go with him, but I'm not sure that it's really answering your question about who's better NOW.

I gotta say I think Rasheed is a better overall player. Jermaine's a better rebounder and is more willing to mix it up in the post offensively, but Wallace is a far superior shooter and he's overall a better defender in my opinion.

If the two players keep going in the direction they have been (Jermaine: getting better; Rasheed: staying about the same), Jermaine will pass him in my mind. But right now, Rasheed's better I think.

Ed O.


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Skill-wise, Rasheed Wallace. Easily. Better shooter with more range. Better post moves with his back to the basket. Better lateral quickness defensively. Jermaine's better at putting the ball on the floor and beating people off the dribble and he's a better position rebounder, I think.
> ...


excellent well-thoughted post, beautiful thing to watch, hey ed do you care to explain to one of those guys in the main board who questioned those who think sheed is a better overall player than j oneal ?????


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>.</b>!
> 
> excellent well-thoughted post, beautiful thing to watch, hey ed do you care to explain to one of those guys in the main board who questioned those who think sheed is a better overall player than j oneal ?????


Thank you for the compliment. The thing is, my perspective is really just opinion (or a set of them), so if someone is SURE that Jermaine is better than Rasheed, there's nothing specific I can use as an argument to convince them.

If someone was on the fence, or really had an open mind, I think that the points I made might sway them somewhat, but I'm not sure they would otherwise.

Ed O.


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Thank you for the compliment. The thing is, my perspective is really just opinion (or a set of them), so if someone is SURE that Jermaine is better than Rasheed, there's nothing specific I can use as an argument to convince them.
> ...


thats correct, a nice post as usual.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Well...it's purely up to your own opinion, but I think that JO is better than Sheed. 

J. O'Neal...20.8ppg, 10.3rpg, 2.3bpg
Rasheed...18.1ppg, 7.4rpg, 0.71bpg

However, it is really hard to compare the two players statistically, as you can argue that JO plays in the East and therefore faces weaker competition. 

So I took each players averages against western conference teams only...

J. O'Neal...28 gs...22.8ppg, 10.1rpg, 2.4bpg
Rasheed...46 gs...17.5ppg, 6.7rpg, 0.9bpg

The stats show that JO was better than Sheed against the western conference and overall.

Once you factor in Sheeds' bad attitude and his older age, I think JO is better....

Thoughts ?


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> Well...it's purely up to your own opinion, but I think that JO is better than Sheed.
> 
> J. O'Neal...20.8ppg, 10.3rpg, 2.3bpg
> ...


in a nutshell, j oneal is a better overall player on the paper but sheed is more talented he he :hurl: :jawdrop:


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Bull-headed-Blazerfans:no: 
I don't know what's more pathetic, the team or the fans:laugh:


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*

Rasheed is without question one of the laziest players in the 
entire NBA.

How embarrased I am that I used to accuse Jermaine of the
same thing.
What was really happening was his frustration was coming out,
I saw it as bad attitude.
Meanwhile Rasheed was coasting thru another season at the 
time.

Jermaine has improved himself EVERY SINGLE SEASON.
Jermaine has improved his shots,and the variety of his play.
Let's not forget Rasheed has not improved one bit,nor does he seem interested !
Look at an interview of Jermaine,then look at an interview of
Rasheed!

Something Damon said one time comes back to haunt us.
He said,"Jermaine can take all of us in practice,he is a monster!''
I thought at the time,how can that be??

Now for the hard part..
WHO IS BETTER??

Rasheed is a better player,BUT SO WHAT IF HE DOESN'T PLAY BETTER??
Jermaine is a better[more desirable] player,and I would take him
in a heartbeat !!
I would trade Rasheed for a less talented player to get rid of him.

I have been watching nearly all Jermaine's games,and he is 
so fun to watch.
He will become the best player at his position !

Rasheed is that BMW sitting in the driveway without an engine.
Not doing me much good.

Thanks for your lively emails Sonic fan..Please keep coming back!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Rasheed is without question one of the laziest players in the
> entire NBA.


lazy players don't play defense.


> Jermaine has improved himself EVERY SINGLE SEASON.


cept for his first 4 years in the league where he didn't do jack squat. Infact, he started out better in Portland than he finished.

this was the first year that Rasheeds scoring average went down (cept for his 2nd and 3rd years in Portland where he came off the bench).


> Jermaine has improved his shots,and the variety of his play.


hold on, Rasheed has improved his shot, (in essence, he's shooting a higher % ) and the variety of his play. One of the drawbacks of Jermaines game is he has no game outside of 15 feet consistently.


> Let's not forget Rasheed has not improved one bit,nor does he seem interested !


Rasheed actually has improved, just in areas you (for some reason) think that a PF should not improve in. He actually shot fewer 3 pointers this year (10 fewer) and made only 4 less. (while playing 5 less games mainly due to his idiotic suspension.) 

Considering Jermaine doesn't shoot 3 pointers (at the clip Rasheed does)...he's not that much better of a FG shooter than Rasheed is. If you took out the 3 pointers that Rasheed shot, he would then have shot 51.46%, which is much better than Jermaines 48%.

So when Rasheed isn't shooting 3's (which, to a certain degree, he shoots too much as a PF, but not as a SF, which would be better for him to play) he's shooting at a much better clip than Jermaine ever thinks he could. 



> Look at an interview of Jermaine,then look at an interview of
> Rasheed!


so? Look at an interview with Shaq, and then look at an interview with Mourning. Mourning gives better (serious) interviews, and Shaq gives funny and sometimes idiotic interviews. Proves nothing.


> Something Damon said one time comes back to haunt us.
> He said,"Jermaine can take all of us in practice,he is a monster!''
> I thought at the time,how can that be??


Sabonis also has said that Jermaine was a knucklehead and never did anything to improve his game.


> Now for the hard part..
> WHO IS BETTER??


I don't know. Defensively, I'd say Rasheed is. Rebounding? Jermaine. Offensively? It matters what you mean by offensively. Rasheed has a bigger arsenal.


> Rasheed is a better player,BUT SO WHAT IF HE DOESN'T PLAY BETTER??
> Jermaine is a better[more desirable] player,and I would take him
> in a heartbeat !!
> I would trade Rasheed for a less talented player to get rid of him.


I think if they keep Rasheed, he shouldn't be the main cog, and then 99% of the problems fans have with him, would go away. Move him to SF (if KG can play SF, so can Rasheed).


> I have been watching nearly all Jermaine's games,and he is
> so fun to watch.
> He will become the best player at his position !


Not as long as Tim Duncan is playing in the association he won't.


> Rasheed is that BMW sitting in the driveway without an engine.
> Not doing me much good.
> 
> Thanks for your lively emails Sonic fan..Please keep coming back!


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*You are right about Duncan*

But Jermaine is developing such an wide range of shots.
Do you watch his games???

You can put put out all your reasons you want to prove your
points,but DO YOU WATCH HIS GAMES??

I could show you some "facts and figures" where I 
work,that the hospital is on it's last legs.
Or I could show you some "facts and figures" they are doing pretty darn well.

You are a fan of Rasheed's play.?
I am a fan of Jermaine's,and think it will go down as one of
Portland's biggest blunders,in letting him go.
Right along side with the "idea"that Rasheed will "someday"
improve.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> So I took each players averages against western conference teams only...
> 
> J. O'Neal...28 gs...22.8ppg, 10.1rpg, 2.4bpg
> Rasheed...46 gs...17.5ppg, 6.7rpg, 0.9bpg


Oops...I just realised I made a mistake with Sheed's stats. It was late at night and I made an error, my bad :uhoh:.

Western Conf. averages:

J. O'Neal...28gs...22.8ppg, 10.1rpg, 2.4bpg
Rasheed...46gs...18.8ppg, 7.3rpg, 1bpg

Difference...+4ppg, +2.8rpg, +1.4bpg to JO .


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: You are right about Duncan*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> But Jermaine is developing such an wide range of shots.
> Do you watch his games???
> 
> ...


no, i don't watch his games. But I do watch the Pacers play.


> I could show you some "facts and figures" where I
> work,that the hospital is on it's last legs.
> Or I could show you some "facts and figures" they are doing pretty darn well.
> 
> You are a fan of Rasheed's play.?


being a fan of Rasheed's play has little or nothing to do with my argument. I happen to think that Rasheed of 2000 is much better than the current Rasheed. I actually happen to be in the group that thinks he should be traded. But if we're going to compare him to Jermaine, it helps if you actually compare their stats.


> I am a fan of Jermaine's,and think it will go down as one of
> Portland's biggest blunders,in letting him go.
> Right along side with the "idea"that Rasheed will "someday"
> improve.


biggest blunder will be not drafting Jordan, 2nd biggest will be trading away/giving up on Moses Malone.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> cept for his first 4 years in the league where he didn't do jack squat. Infact, he started out better in Portland than he finished.


J.O'Neal came straight from HS, he wasn't ready for the NBA in his first few years in the league. He also didn't get much of a chance in Portland, he was only playing 8-12 minutes pg.



> this was the first year that Rasheeds scoring average went down (cept for his 2nd and 3rd years in Portland where he came off the bench).


95-96...WAS...10.1ppg...-
96-97...POR...15.1ppg...up
97-98...POR...14.6ppg...down
98-99...POR...12.8ppg...down
99-00...POR...16.4ppg...up
00-01...POR...19.2ppg...up
01-02...POR...19.3ppg...slightly up
02-03...POR...18.1ppg...down

Sheed has also never cracked the 20ppg mark, which JO did this year.




> hold on, Rasheed has improved his shot, (in essence, he's shooting a higher % ) and the variety of his play. One of the drawbacks of Jermaines game is he has no game outside of 15 feet consistently.


Nope, Sheed's shooting a lower %. In 99-00 he shot .519, in 00-01 he shot .501, now he is shooting .471.




> Rasheed actually has improved, just in areas you (for some reason) think that a PF should not improve in. He actually shot fewer 3 pointers this year (10 fewer) and made only 4 less. (while playing 5 less games mainly due to his idiotic suspension.)


He is still shooting a high number of threes. This has increased since 00-01 he shot 52-162. Now he is jacking up 110-307...



> Considering Jermaine doesn't shoot 3 pointers (at the clip Rasheed does)...he's not that much better of a FG shooter than Rasheed is. If you took out the 3 pointers that Rasheed shot, he would then have shot 51.46%, which is much better than Jermaines 48%.


LOL, this has little relevance.... 

...if you took out Antoine Walker's 3-pointers he's shooting .426 instead of .388...



> So when Rasheed isn't shooting 3's (which, to a certain degree, he shoots too much as a PF, but not as a SF, which would be better for him to play) he's shooting at a much better clip than Jermaine ever thinks he could.


Ahh...but he's not a SF, he's a PF. If you take out both players 3's.

J. O'Neal...603 - 1239...0.467
Rasheed...405 - 787...0.514

Sheed is shooting slightly better, but JO is putting in a lot more shots, almost 200 more makes than Sheed.




> Sabonis also has said that Jermaine was a knucklehead and never did anything to improve his game.


Well, he obviously did something...you don't just go from 4ppg to over 20ppg without doing some work ?




> I don't know. Defensively, I'd say Rasheed is. Rebounding? Jermaine. Offensively? It matters what you mean by offensively. Rasheed has a bigger arsenal.


Defensively, Sheed ? JO has way more blocks. Offensively - JO - more points, makes better decisions. Rebounding - JO - Has more rebounds per game....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> J.O'Neal came straight from HS, he wasn't ready for the NBA in his first few years in the league. He also didn't get much of a chance in Portland, he was only playing 8-12 minutes pg.


there's a reason he didn't get much of a chance in Portland. Rasheed and Brian Grant were both far better than him, and he got impatient. And when he did come into the game, he sucked.


> 95-96...WAS...10.1ppg...-
> 96-97...POR...15.1ppg...up
> 97-98...POR...14.6ppg...down
> 98-99...POR...12.8ppg...down


as a bench player the last of these 2 seasons. 


> Sheed has also never cracked the 20ppg mark, which JO did this year.


yah, in the Leastern Conference. In his prime, I think that TP was a better PG than Kevin Johnson was (altho KJ was in no way, a slouch of a PG). TP never cracked over 20 ppg, but he was arguably as good a PG as Kevin Johnson was, who did average over 20 in a season 5 times. Averaging 20 ppg is not the bench mark.

Clyde Drexler never averaged 30 ppg...A Iverson has..so I guess Iverson is a better player, right?

Not in a million years would anyone who knows anything about basketball, take Iverson over Drexler in their respective primes.



> Nope, Sheed's shooting a lower %. In 99-00 he shot .519, in 00-01 he shot .501, now he is shooting .471.


true, but if you think about it, Rasheed is shooting 47% while taking over 300 three pointers. So he's obviously a better shooter.


> He is still shooting a high number of threes. This has increased since 00-01 he shot 52-162. Now he is jacking up 110-307...


yes, this is a given. I still don't get why people don't complain when a white tall german does it, (or Peja) but when Rasheed does it, it's almost like he's spitting in the face of all things right and pure in this world.



> LOL, this has little relevance....
> 
> ...if you took out Antoine Walker's 3-pointers he's shooting .426 instead of .388...


actually, it has huge importance in the argument. It was mentioned that Jermaine shot a better %, but it's like comparing Terry Porters FG% to Buck Williams. If you took out TP's 3 pointers, he shot incredibly better.

And on top of that, what does bringing in Antoine Walkers horrible stats have to do with the time of day? That just proves he's a horrible shooter who shoots too many 3's, and not a good shooter to BEGIN with.


> Ahh...but he's not a SF, he's a PF. If you take out both players 3's.
> 
> J. O'Neal...603 - 1239...0.467
> Rasheed...405 - 787...0.514
> ...


hold on, so it's just 'slightly better" if you take out the three's (almost a .05 better) but if you leave them in, it's big time in Jermaines favor (.013)??

why is it only slightly if you take out the 3 point shots (when it's almost 47% vs 51%)? 



> Defensively, Sheed ? JO has way more blocks.


block shots does not a better defensive player make.


> Offensively - JO - more points, makes better decisions.


how do you figure he makes better decisions? Because he stays in the precious paint as a PF?


> > Rebounding - JO - Has more rebounds per game....
> 
> 
> as you might have seen, I did conceed rebounds to Jermaine, but so what? This team obviously isn't hurting because of lack of rebounds.
> ...


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> yah, in the Leastern Conference. In his prime, I think that TP was a better PG than Kevin Johnson was (altho KJ was in no way, a slouch of a PG). TP never cracked over 20 ppg, but he was arguably as good a PG as Kevin Johnson was, who did average over 20 in a season 5 times. Averaging 20 ppg is not the bench mark.


Yes, he's in the Leastern conf., but if you see my previous posts, you will see that JO averages more than Sheed in points, rebounds and blocks against the western conference. 



> true, but if you think about it, Rasheed is shooting 47% while taking over 300 three pointers. So he's obviously a better shooter.


Yes, he shoots a higher % without 3's...does that make him a better player ?



> yes, this is a given. I still don't get why people don't complain when a white tall german does it, (or Peja) but when Rasheed does it, it's almost like he's spitting in the face of all things right and pure in this world.


People don't complain when Dirk does it, because it is his obvious strength. He gets great success doing it...25.1ppg, 9.9rpg, 3apg. Dirk hasn't developed a post up game yet, so I'm sure he and his coach are more comfortable with him out on the perimeter. 

If Sheed could put up 25 pts and 10 rebs while staying on the perimeter shooting a high percentage, then I'm sure that nobody would complain.



> hold on, so it's just 'slightly better" if you take out the three's (almost a .05 better) but if you leave them in, it's big time in Jermaines favor (.013)??
> 
> why is it only slightly if you take out the 3 point shots (when it's almost 47% vs 51%)?


I consider it slight in the context that jermaine made 47% of 1239 shots. Sheed made 51% of 787 shots...Jermaine shoots at 4% less (when you discount 3's), but made 200 more shots. I'd prefer the extra makes that JO gets.



> block shots does not a better defensive player make.


Yes, but how else can measure defense statistically other than blocks and steals...?



> how do you figure he makes better decisions? Because he stays in the precious paint as a PF?


He plays to his obvious strength, which is posting up. Wouldn't you prefer Sheed to post up more and jack up less 3's ? 



> Jermaine has been known to disapear from many games, and important games.


That is something Sheed is usually reknown for....

These playoffs...

Rasheed...17.4 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.71 bpg
J. O'Neal...22.8 ppg, 17.5 rpg  , 3.0 bpg

looks like JO stepped it up in these important games, while Sheed disappeared...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: avatar question*



> Originally posted by <b>bfan1</b>!
> hey-is your avatar Cook?


His avatar is Sebastian Telfair, Stephon Marbury's cousin.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes, he's in the Leastern conf., but if you see my previous posts, you will see that JO averages more than Sheed in points, rebounds and blocks against the western conference.


so what?


> Yes, he shoots a higher % without 3's...does that make him a better player ?


did I say it made him a better player? Does Jermaine shooting a better % a better player? Does Jermaine playing in a totally different system make him a better player?



> People don't complain when Dirk does it, because it is his obvious strength. He gets great success doing it...25.1ppg, 9.9rpg, 3apg. Dirk hasn't developed a post up game yet, so I'm sure he and his coach are more comfortable with him out on the perimeter.


Maybe Sheed's strength is his outside shot. And who cares if Sheed gets 19 points with 6 three pointers and 1 free throw, or 9 2 point shots, and 1 free throw?


> If Sheed could put up 25 pts and 10 rebs while staying on the perimeter shooting a high percentage, then I'm sure that nobody would complain.


Whats the point of saying that? no duh people wouldn't complain.



> I consider it slight in the context that jermaine made 47% of 1239 shots. Sheed made 51% of 787 shots...Jermaine shoots at 4% less (when you discount 3's), but made 200 more shots. I'd prefer the extra makes that JO gets.


Well, I hate to break it to you, Jermaine wouldn't get the same numbers he does in Indiana as he does in Portland. Thats one thing people seem to have a hard time grasping. Players numbers on another team don't equal what they'd average in Portland. (see Steve Smith and his scoring average in Portland vs Atlanta).


> Yes, but how else can measure defense statistically other than blocks and steals...?


altered shots, how the other big name players at his position do against not only him, but the others.


> He plays to his obvious strength, which is posting up. Wouldn't you prefer Sheed to post up more and jack up less 3's ?


never said I didn't, but whats the point of bringing that up? First off, it's not like he's going Antoine Walker on us. Also, why force a player to be soimething he's not?



> That is something Sheed is usually reknown for....
> 
> These playoffs...
> 
> ...


when Jermaine is the main cog on a team that goes to the WCF's, then these numbers would matter. Also, when Jermaines team actually gets out of the 1st round...


> looks like JO stepped it up in these important games, while Sheed disappeared...


yah, disappeared with a sprained ankle, and the emergence of Zach Randolph.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> so what?


Umm ? are you forgetting you previous post ? I said JO cracked the 20ppg mark, and you said "yeh, in the leastern conf" so I was showing that he posted 20+ppg in the western conference...




> did I say it made him a better player? Does Jermaine shooting a better % a better player? Does Jermaine playing in a totally different system make him a better player?


Well, you obviously think Sheed is a better player, or you wouldn't have posted all these replys implying that Sheed is better.



> Maybe Sheed's strength is his outside shot. And who cares if Sheed gets 19 points with 6 three pointers and 1 free throw, or 9 2 point shots, and 1 free throw?


I think Sheed's strenght lies somewhere in between the post and the perimeter. But, he doesn't have the post game of JO, or the perimeter game of Dirk...




> Whats the point of saying that? no duh people wouldn't complain.


Again, you must of forgot what you asked...you said "I still don't get why no one complains when a tall white german does it"

I was simply showing why no one complained when Dirk done it, but why they complain when Sheed does it....it is 'cos Sheed isn't as good on the perimeter as Dirk... 



> Well, I hate to break it to you, Jermaine wouldn't get the same numbers he does in Indiana as he does in Portland. Thats one thing people seem to have a hard time grasping. Players numbers on another team don't equal what they'd average in Portland. (see Steve Smith and his scoring average in Portland vs Atlanta).


Maybe...but, would Sheed put up JO's numbers if he was in Indiana ? Indiana is like the Portland of the Eastern Conf, they are very deep too.



> altered shots, how the other big name players at his position do against not only him, but the others.


True...I'll agree with you there. But, It will take time to research it (I might try it later). I don't think it will be 100% accurate either, how can you know that Sheed was matched up on one player the whole game ? e.g if Sheed went to the bench, but the other PF stayed out there... 



> never said I didn't, but whats the point of bringing that up? First off, it's not like he's going Antoine Walker on us. Also, why force a player to be soimething he's not?


No, he's not going 'Toine on ya ...But, I was just showing that many players fg% can be improved by taking away their 3pt attempts, even 'Toine....



> when Jermaine is the main cog on a team that goes to the WCF's, then these numbers would matter. Also, when Jermaines team actually gets out of the 1st round...


I think JO's team will get out of the first round in the next season or so. Hey, Sheed didn't take his team out of the 1st round this season either...?



> yah, disappeared with a sprained ankle, and the emergence of Zach Randolph.


This is another aspect which I don't understand...

Why do Portland fans want Sheed around so much ? when he's not even the best PF on the team anymore...Z Randolph is a talented PF and I think he will be much better than Sheed. He has a much higher work ethic, and doesn't have the same bad attitude...


----------



## RipCityJB (Jan 7, 2003)

> I don't know what's more pathetic, the team or the fans


This statement coming from a Sonics fan? Sorry to go a bit off topic, but a Sonics fan talking trash about the Blazers. Are you kidding me? While everyone has a right to their opinion, lets look at the facts....

The Teams:

Blazers: 21 years in a row in the play-offs. 2 appearances in finals since 1990. 4 appearances in conference finals since 1990. Certainly some well publicized player transgressions...but, 3 Blazers have won the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship award since 1990....and the franchise in 2000 won a national award for community service (the only sports team ever to win the award).

Sonics: Missed playoffs 3 of last 5 years. 1 appearance in finals since 1990. 2 appearances in conference finals since 1990. 0 winners of J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship Award ever.

The Fans: 

Blazers: Longest sell-out streak in pro-sports history from 1977-95. 7th in attendance in NBA in 2002-03 at 19,421 per game (97% capacity). Dirk Nowitzki quoted during 2003 NBA play-offs that the loudest road arenas for the Mavs in the league were Sacramento and Portland. Basketballboards.net post count 42,179.

Sonics: No sell-out streak worth mentioning. 21st in NBA in attendance in 2002-03 with 15, 541 per game (91% of capacity). No reputation with the likes of Portland and Sacramento as one of the loudest buildings in the NBA. Basketballboards.net post count 2,755.

Once again, everyone has a right to their opinion.....but the facts seem to indicate that if you want to talk about the team and fans, the Sonics can't hold a candle to the Blazers.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Wow, RipCityJB laying down some science...

Well put.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RipCityJB</b>!
> This statement coming from a Sonics fan? Sorry to go a bit off topic, but a Sonics fan talking trash about the Blazers. Are you kidding me? While everyone has a right to their opinion, lets look at the facts....
> 
> The Teams:
> ...


Hmm...do you think any current Blazers would win the J. Walter Kennedy citizenship award ?...:no: 

Besides, I think that the Sonics and the Blazers are in the same boat...

Neither has won a championship since the late 1970's...:no:

Blazers in 1976-77
Sonics in 1978-79


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

As a blazer fan i can honestly say Jermaine is currently a better player, and in the future will be a MUCH better player than Sheed


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JERMAINE IN A HEARTBEAT*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Umm ? are you forgetting you previous post ? I said JO cracked the 20ppg mark, and you said "yeh, in the leastern conf" so I was showing that he posted 20+ppg in the western conference...


so whats rasheeds #'s vs the leastern conference?


> Well, you obviously think Sheed is a better player, or you wouldn't have posted all these replys implying that Sheed is better.


no, just that it's pointless to compare one player to another, and leave out many important criteria.


> I think Sheed's strenght lies somewhere in between the post and the perimeter. But, he doesn't have the post game of JO, or the perimeter game of Dirk...


I don't know, Rasheed and Dirks' 3 fg% isn't much better than Rasheeds, especially to make the claim that he doesn't have the game of Dirk. Dirk w/out 3's shoots worse than Rasheed does.
And please, Rasheed's inside game (when he goes in the paint) is so much better than Jermaines, it's not even funny.



> Again, you must of forgot what you asked...you said "I still don't get why no one complains when a tall white german does it"


and that has to do with what I said...how? A big reason he doesn't get complaints is because he's german, and not from the US. They're supposed to shoot outside shots and be weak.


> I was simply showing why no one complained when Dirk done it, but why they complain when Sheed does it....it is 'cos Sheed isn't as good on the perimeter as Dirk...


accept that Dirk isn't astronomically better (36% vs 38%) from 3 point land. 


> Maybe...but, would Sheed put up JO's numbers if he was in Indiana ? Indiana is like the Portland of the Eastern Conf, they are very deep too.


Since in the east he wouldn't have to play the likes of Webber, Brand, Duncan, KG, Malone, and Shaq, probably he would. Who is a PF or centre in the east? Jermaine O'neal and Martin.



> No, he's not going 'Toine on ya ...But, I was just showing that many players fg% can be improved by taking away their 3pt attempts, even 'Toine....


but when it's mentioned that Jermaine shoots better, you have to take into account his 3 point shots.


> I think JO's team will get out of the first round in the next season or so. Hey, Sheed didn't take his team out of the 1st round this season either...?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Pacers playing one of the best teams in the league, without their pg (pippen) for 3 games, without their backup centre for at least one game (sabonis) without their starting guard (DA) for 6 games, and without their starting centre for the last game (DD) and maybe more.



> This is another aspect which I don't understand...
> 
> Why do Portland fans want Sheed around so much ? when he's not even the best PF on the team anymore...Z Randolph is a talented PF and I think he will be much better than Sheed. He has a much higher work ethic, and doesn't have the same bad attitude...


I think it's partly because he'd come off the cap next year, he's still good for 18 ppg and 7-8 boards, and as much as Zach is a talented force, he's not ready to be the full time starter.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm...do you think any current Blazers would win the J. Walter Kennedy citizenship award ?...:no:


Chris Dudley won it. 


> Besides, I think that the Sonics and the Blazers are in the same boat...
> 
> Neither has won a championship since the late 1970's...:no:
> 
> ...


Portland and Seattle have been to the same # of finals (3) and Portlands been to 6 WCF's, and I don't know how many the sonics have been (at least 4, probably 6-7?)


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Stats against Eastern Conf...

Rasheed...28gs...17.4ppg, 8rpg, 1.1bpg
J. O'Neal...48gs...19.8ppg, 10.4rpg, 2.2bpg

To me, it seems as though the east isn't that easy. Both Sheed and JO averaged more ppg vs the western conference...The rebounding seems to be easier in the east though.


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ThatBlazerGuy</b>!
> As a blazer fan i can honestly say Jermaine is currently a better player, and in the future will be a MUCH better player than Sheed


yeah but still, sheed is capable to score in a much more variety ways, even though his stats might not saying it but hes clearly a far more talented player, sheed just never maximize his potential.
a much more capable post player and 3 point shooter than j oneal, although j oneal is better ball handler and is better at beating people off the dribble


----------



## Skiptomylou12 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>.</b>!
> 
> 
> although j oneal is better ball handler and is better at beating people off the dribble


i think rasheed's better player int he fast break, i remember the play in the palyoffs when rasheed led the fast break and threw it behind the back, one paly dont' mean anything but that showed his skills


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Skiptomylou12</b>!
> 
> 
> i think rasheed's better player int he fast break, i remember the play in the palyoffs when rasheed led the fast break and threw it behind the back, one paly dont' mean anything but that showed his skills


yeah dawg, thats right one play didnt meant anything but he showed his skills ehhhhhhh


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Skiptomylou12</b>!
> i think rasheed's better player int he fast break, i remember the play in the palyoffs when rasheed led the fast break and threw it behind the back, one paly dont' mean anything but that showed his skills


Hmm...I don't quite remember this...

Was it the one where he gave it off to Bonzi for the throw down ?


----------



## Skiptomylou12 (Jun 25, 2003)

it was vs. dallas where he led of the fast break and went behind the back to patterson i think


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Skiptomylou12</b>!
> it was vs. dallas where he led of the fast break and went behind the back to patterson i think


he really didn't go behind his back, thats just how Wheeler announced it. He went over his head.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> he really didn't go behind his back, thats just how Wheeler announced it. He went over his head.


Ahh...yep, I remember it now :yes:

...I was trying to think of a play where Sheed threw a behind the back pass....:laugh:


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

*portland vs seattle*

Seattle doesn't hold a candle to the Blazers? 

Please. 


Sure the Blazers have been to the Western Confrenece Finals more than Seattle.
But it doesn't amount to **** when you choke each and every time. 

The only reason the Blazer games sold out? Portland doesn't have any other teams to watch. 
The other reason??? Clyde Drexler.
Notice the end of the sellout run happened the year Clyde left.
It was also the 2nd year of Bob Whitsit. 

Seattle has other pro teams to watch






You guys need a Clyde Drexler now more than ever!


Blazer fans??? a XXXXX XX XXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXXXX who think Sheed will lead them to the promiseland!

_*you can make fun of the team (to a degree) but do not make fun of the fans. It is disrespectful, and we will not tolerate it. If you wish to post here, please remember this rule. ~Hap *_


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

_*I will not tolerate people making snide remarks about Blazer fans, or Laker fans, or Sonics fans or ANY fans of teams. Making fun of the team is one thing, but making fun of the fans is a whole other kettle of fish. We might have done that in the past, (including myself) but it leads us nowhere. If it continues, I will be closing those threads without warning. Keep it nice, or don't bother posting it.*_


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Great job, ever heard of freedom of speech?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Great job, ever heard of freedom of speech?


yes I have. Ever hear of Terms of Service?

Like I said in my PM, if you have a problem with what I did, PM TheRifleman, and complain. I kept a copy of what I wrote you.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: free speech*



> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Thanks for the kind words Jackal, I had pegged all Blazer fans as spoiled, block-headed simpletons. You're post proved me wrong (Ashame I can't say that about the rest of these pro-Blazer posts) It's good to know that the Blazers have "down to earth" fans like yourself!!! Be careful around those Neandertals at the Rose Garden!!!


This isn't the place to just insult those that you disagree with. Unless our fine Mods (why do you think they are called "moderators" anyways?) clean up bleep like your posts, quickly we digress into a site where nothing is discussed and only insults are swapped. There are plenty of other boards that practice your type of "free speech."

STOMP


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Terms of Service are made to be broken


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

So are laws, that's why we have prisons...


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer? Is that an oxymoron?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Terms of Service are made to be broken


Breaking the terms of service is a good way to take a break from BBB.net.

In general the administration has no use for people who beligeerantly dfy the terms of service and Guidelines of usage. They can and do suspend and banish people. They use the IP address rather than just the user name so the suspended person can't just reregister and be off on a spree again.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Blazer Ringbearer? Is that an oxymoron?


Nope, I'm allergic to oxymorons...

had to stop eating Jumbo Shrimp years ago...


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

Remember this:
It's not like I did anything wrong. I Just telling it how I see it.Then some moderator happens to disagree with my post and decides to erase it. I've been on this bbb.net site from day one. So it's not like I joined yesterday, and it's not like I go around to other teams forums and talk smack all day either. I did comment on a certain teams fanbase. (Which my original comments were right on target- and that's why they were erased)
But, if you really want to know, I could care less about parting ways with bbb.net, there are much better sites out there anyway.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Remember this:
> It's not like I did anything wrong. I Just telling it how I see it.Then some moderator happens to disagree with my post and decides to erase it.


whether or not I agree'd with it had little or nothing to do with the editing.

I tend to not agree with about 75% of the posters here, but they're respectful.


> I've been on this bbb.net site from day one. So it's not like I joined yesterday, and it's not like I go around to other teams forums and talk smack all day either. I did comment on a certain teams fanbase. (Which my original comments were right on target- and that's why they were erased)


so what if thats the criteria behind it? You were being disrespectful to the fans here, and trolling. If you don't like the team, don't post here, it's that simple. I don't care if you post here, and you hate the Blazers, but be respectful. It's as simple as that.


> But, if you really want to know, I could care less about parting ways with bbb.net, there are much better sites out there anyway.


if thats how you feel, thats how you feel. If you want to go, no ones stopping you. If you want to stay, no ones stopping you either. 

You give respect and you get respect.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

runbmg- thanks for the petty/spitefull vote. Class act...

STOMP


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

For one I wasn't trolling. You should re-read the entire fourm you'd see that my original points were quite valid, and unbiased. 

But, the returning comments from 90% of the "fans" were way off topic. They (including you) accused me of talking smack, trying to cause an arguement, or trolling. About the only Blazerfan with a level head in this forum was JackieJackal. Hap, I think you are SO off base that your moderator position should be reviewed, becasue you are one of those fans that have a biased opinion on someone who is not a "Blazer-fan"

Imagine if I had posted those exact same comments with a Blazer Avatar? The outcome would have been much different. I feel that what a person says in here (especially Blazer forums) is based on what team they have as an avatar. 

I also feel that Hap may be a little upset about the current situation is regarding your pint-sized point guard, Damon. 

I'll admit my recent posting became more critical, but that was only AFTER I recieved countless responses that were pathetic, stubborn, and pretty much pointless. 

Blazer fans have a real problem accepting an outsiders opinion about their beloved team. Maybe if they listened more they would see what the rest of the NBA sees. 

A team that SHOULD be winning titles after titles after titles. If you consider that trolling then my points regarding "stubborn fan" are more correct than ever.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

he's a cute one... looks like i got one too...


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> runbmg- thanks for the petty/spitefull vote. Class act...
> 
> STOMP


Are you trying to rally your troops or something? 
The reason I gave you a low vote is because I feel that you can do better. 

Speaking of class acts, how's Damon doing?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Congrats BR! I consider it a badge of honor of sorts, wear it proudly...

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ha, we could do better by agreeing with everything you say along with your imagined right to break the bbb.net terms of use?

I dunno about Stomp, but I'm gonna get right on that first thing tomorrow morning. Maybe then you'll be proud of me?

Daddy?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> For one I wasn't trolling. You should re-read the entire fourm you'd see that my original points were quite valid, and unbiased.


then if you weren't, you didn't need to call the fans "simpletons", did you?


> Hap, I think you are SO off base that your moderator position should be reviewed, becasue you are one of those fans that have a biased opinion on someone who is not a "Blazer-fan"


oh I do? Interesting. So, I guess my quote about wanting to trade Rasheed would not be a comment by a "Blazer fan", huh? But wait..that would be agreeing with what Jackie wants! 

OMIGOSH! I guess that means...I'm not biased.



> Imagine if I had posted those exact same comments with a Blazer Avatar? The outcome would have been much different. I feel that what a person says in here (especially Blazer forums) is based on what team they have as an avatar.


most of the Blazer fans who post with a Blazer avatar, don't call Blazer fans "simpletons". That is what this is ONLY about, so don't try to make this into some "power hungry" argument. It had nothing to do with your opinion, just the fact YOU CALLED THE BLAZER FANS SIMPLETONS! 

In an earlier post, I changed someones post who said "Fakers" to "Lakers" and said that if we don't like people calling the Blazers "Jail blazers", we shouldn't call the Lakers "Fakers".

Um..hm...why would I, a biased Blazers fan who only edits things on the basis of whether or not someone agree's with me, have done that?

When someone called Greg Ostertag "osterfag", I edited it. Why? Because it's offensive, and uncalled for. Do I care what team that person roots for? No. Infact, I don't even remember who the person was.



> I also feel that Hap may be a little upset about the current situation is regarding your pint-sized point guard, Damon.


where did this come from? I'm one of (many) who thinks he should be traded. 


> A team that SHOULD be winning titles after titles after titles. If you consider that trolling then my points regarding "stubborn fan" are more correct than ever.


you were trolling when you called the fans simpltons. Thats what the problem was, not about your point or your previous posts. If you'd accept that as the reason for why I censored you, then we can move on. 

Again, as I said before, if you feel I'm doing a bad job as a mod, or feel as tho I have stepped outside the bounds of modism, feel free to PM TheRifleman.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

So all I did "Wrong" was use the word simpleton to describe Blazer fans? wow! Must have struck a nerve.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, as I said before, if you feel I'm doing a bad job as a mod, or feel as tho I have stepped outside the bounds of modism, feel free to PM TheRifleman.


I think people can decide for themselves. I'm not gonna go tell "mommy" because that's what a "Simpleton" would do.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok I think it be dat time wher's we all just walk away and realize where this has gone.

I will leave it open, but it's up[ to all of you to let it die.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> So all I did "Wrong" was use the word simpleton to describe Blazer fans? wow! Must have struck a nerve.


nope. It's all about being respectful. You don't, nor does anyone here, mean enough to me for that to happen.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Speaking of class acts, how's Damon doing?


You could check the Damon thread to get the gist of my opinions on that subject, but I've rooted against The Rodent since high school. I hated when they traded for him and when they resigned him. I've looked forward to the day when they can turn the page on his days in red and black for years now. Guess how torn up I'll be if he spends some time in jail? 

I'm not sure if you'll get this, but I am not the Blazers or all Blazer fans. If one of them (the players) messes up, I didn't mess up, and it's zero reflection on me. I'm just a fan, more of individual players and hoops in general then of the PTB. I believe your insults (Blockheads, Simpletons, Neanderthals...ect) reflects more on you for using them, then the posters you are trying to insult. 

Rally the troops??? thats rich. If you'd take the time to read the posts here instead of just popping off smearing a whole fanbase with juvenile bleep, you'd probably come to know that the only thing we agree on is wanting to see Portland win titles. How they might accomplish this is where the fun starts. We try to play nice as we work out out differences though. 

Is that better in your eyes, or do you wish you could give me a one star rating another 10 times? 

STOMP


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

just for clarification: What hap did was what he was supposed to do. We do not allow anyone here to attack an entire fanbase.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sean</b>!
> just for clarification: What hap did was what he was supposed to do. We do not allow anyone here to attack an entire fanbase.


Hap did what any good moderator would do when a poster denigrates an entire fan base. I expect him to edit according to the rules - which he did.


runbmg, you should make your pm function available to yourself and to others, like me. This conversation could have been done via pm and settled quickly instead of cluttering a perfectly good thread.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*A new trend here*

Portland's fans are becoming pretty snippy with really good
posters here,the board is much less friendly.

Some of the best posts here lately have not come from Portland 
fans,but outside Portland.
What's up ?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Portland's fans are becoming pretty snippy with really good
> posters here,the board is much less friendly.
> 
> ...


It all depends on one's definition of "best posts", I think.

Ed O.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Talking smack...



> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> So it's not like I joined yesterday, and it's not like I go around to other teams forums and talk smack all day either.





> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Just becasue I've been talkin' smack over at the LA Lakers fourm, they gave me poor votes!


barfo


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Portland's fans are becoming pretty snippy with really good
> posters here,the board is much less friendly.
> 
> ...


I don't think many outside people think the Blazers board is friendly...:no:

I think I'm the only non-Blazer fan who posts regularly here....Most people don't like to 'cos you usually get ripped for saying anything negative about the Blazers. 

I try to stay neutral/unbiased most of the time, and most people here are alright guys :greatjob:. But, I've noticed there has been a lot of hating on here since the Kobe incident....:no:


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>barfo</b>!
> Talking smack...
> 
> 
> ...


Wow. You must be bored. Go check the other forums. No mention of smack talk from me anywhere besides LA and PDX.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> Most people don't like to 'cos you usually get ripped for saying anything negative about the Blazers.


Is there anything un-Negative about this team?


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> Wow. You must be bored.


You too, obviously.



> Go check the other forums. No mention of smack talk from me anywhere besides LA and PDX.


So, you are only trolling on two boards? Congratulations on your restraint, I guess.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>Scinos</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think many outside people think the Blazers board is friendly...:no:
> ...


there's a difference when it's a positive post (in the sense that they're respectful) and negative things, or things that are totally wrong, and factually incorrect.

none of us blazer fans (including me, mr power trip mod) care if you like or dislike the Blazers. It's when you come in and claim you know things about the team, and make grandiose comments about the team and the players (or the fans) that are absolutely 100% incorrect, that we call you on it.

No fan of any team wants to have someone else come in and rip on their team. It's like the old saying.

I can make fun of my brother. My brother can make fun of me. But the minute you make fun of my brother, I'm sticking my boot in your butt.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> 
> Is there anything un-Negative about this team?


Appreciate you proving that you're only here to troll.

A hint...if you want to protest that you're not smack-talking, it helps to not follow it up with smack-talk. Kind of weakens your original claim, y'see.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Best post definition to me*

Is one that informs me of what's going on,and how other fans
feel about it. I CARE how they feel,sad or happy,or indifferent.
I don't care how they word something,if they are sincere and kind.

There is a feeling of arogance that has come over this board from certain people,and it's very unpleasant.

All I need from other posters is respect back,NOT A PERSONAL
ATTACK.
We are all NBA fans,I love to talk about every team with my pals,
and have enjoyed many a conversation bragging about "my
Blazers".

But I can just as much enjoy talking about their faults,with other 
fans,particularly when they are right on about the Blazers.
I find it interesting to hear their opinions.

That's why the League Pass is soooo great. I can hear the other
announcers talk about the Blazers with mostly unbiased opinions.

And for the most part the opening comments from mostly all
teams announcers is a yuk or two about what clowns the Blazers
are.
But once they get past the laughing,almost 100% of them 
praise the Blazers.
But the recurring thought always comes down to one comment
from them..

"they should be winning championships with that lineup,what's 
wrong?"

Anybody who can't see "what's wrong" either has rose colored
glasses on,or just can't seem to tolerate hearing anything negative.

Until they rid themselves of the problems,they will be like a little
gerbil in a cage,going round and round.
Rasheed,and Bonzi will take this team nowhere.
They don't show the brains to win.
Oh yeah,they have the skills,just no brains.

Good posts should reflect how someone feels,not a SAT score.


----------



## runbmg (May 25, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> Appreciate you proving that you're only here to troll.




I sure started out with a credible, outsiders opinion, but the constant attacks from many of you Blazer fans, caused me to defend myself. I had to resort to your Blazerfan level... I had to talk smack to the smack talkers. 

You STILL don't truly read the credible posts from people that aren't Blazer fans. You just attack them with pointless garbage, and then the non-Blazer fans are left with either giving up, or giving it back. 


What a sad sad team
:no:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A new trend here*



> Originally posted by <b>runbmg</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


show us where we attacked you with pointless garbage?

How come no one is attacking scinos? How come no one attacks Ron? 

You were "attacked" because YOU called Blazer fans simpletons. Had you not said that, none of this would have transpired.

If you keep doing this, things will just get worse for you.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

*Re: Best post definition to me*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Is one that informs me of what's going on,and how other fans
> feel about it. I CARE how they feel,sad or happy,or indifferent.
> I don't care how they word something,if they are sincere and kind.
> ...


Thanks Jackal, for asking some of the more stubborn here to open up their eyes. True fans care about winning a championship and nothing less, and there are others who are worried about image, marketing and stuff that they cannot affect. You can tell me again and again that Portland was an inch away from the Finals, Portland was so close they just need GP even though he's on his way to LA, but GP won't help diddly squat. That is putting another arrogant player without a success story on a team that needs more Zach Randolph's, players with heart who want to earn their money.

Yes, Portland need's a superstar to turn to. And yes, they need to get rid of Wallace, Patterson, Stoudamire maybe DA and use Bonzi as bait to send them off, maybe even Randolph because not only does Paul Allen pay a $100 million (luxury tax incl.) more than most other owners, but he is getting nothing but contempt back in return, its time he and the new GM sit down and think things over. This team is asking to be blown apart. Right now I dont think they are comparable to Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks or Kings, and with Houston, Minnesota and Phoenix getting up there a mediocre team won't cut it, that's what the Blazers have been for more than a decade, even when they reached the Finals in the early 90's. Atleast then they had a go to go in the form of Drexler. But right now they have hooligans, shame on Stoudamire for screwing up again, WHAT WAS HE THINKING. More importantly, what are the Blazers thinking.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

A pair of mediocre teams that made it to the Finals? 

True fans care about winning a championship and nothing less?

This team is asking to be blown apart?

What a bunch of nonsense.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Best post definition to me*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> There is a feeling of arogance that has come over this board from certain people,and it's very unpleasant. All I need from other posters is respect back, NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.


I've been at the recieving end of a few of your unprovoked personal attacks. Now you're claiming you stay on the high road and you're upset about the tone of some of the threads....    Need me to link them?



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Anybody who can't see "what's wrong" either has rose colored
> glasses on,or just can't seem to tolerate hearing anything negative. Until they rid themselves of the problems, they will be like a little gerbil in a cage, going round and round.


I could be wrong, but I happen to think that Wallace and Bonzi are very good weapons that play much better whenever they have a healthy playmaker (PIP) getting them the ball in the flow rather then some stoned midget dribbling out the clock to set up his own desperation jumper because he can't make basic entry passes. When PIP was feeling his oats last year in a rare stretch of health, Portland ripped off a 22-5 stretch. Project that same pace over the course of a season, and they go 67-15. Sure thats trying on the rosey glasses, but that seems to be legit reason to hope that attaining a quality distributor like GP would make a major difference. Unfortunately in the recent past Scottie has always been broken down come the playoffs, so we have never been allowed to see what the team is capable of when it matters.

An analogy- Would Jerry Rice have caught all those TDs if he had Trent Dilfer and Jeff Blake throwing him the ball instead of two HOF QBs in Montana and Young? IMO, Portland has had only two pass first guys on their team over the last 5 years or so (PIP and Sabas), everyone else is a finisher and an average passer at best. I've never thought Wallace or Wells were superstars (whatever that is), but they are quality players in their prime who come through on their end more often then not. 

If you are others want to post negative stuff about the team, fine, thats your opinion. But when you emphaticly insist that anyone who sees things differently is blind, stupid, "new to basketball," or somehow incapable of grasping an obvious truth because of their rooting biases, thats when you're going to generate a response from me. I require a little respect for my opinion as well.

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*sorry stomp*

But I don't feel like responding to you.
Please don't bother me.
I usually bark back when provoked..
got a problem with that?
Please..
have a nice evening.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

That's some good haiku with some minor alterations:

But I do not feel
Like responding to you STOMP
Please don't bother me.

I bark when provoked.
Got a problem with that? Please...
Have a nice evening.

(I am NOT picking on you, jackie... I just saw the haiku form and had to share with the group...)

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*no..course not Ed..*

Nah..you have only the best intent..
if this doesn't get a statement from the mod's I would like to 
know what does.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: no..course not Ed..*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Nah..you have only the best intent..
> if this doesn't get a statement from the mod's I would like to
> know what does.


I think that if you post something on the board that's entirely without any basketball content at all, you don't really have much to complain about if someone replies in a fashion you don't really enjoy. Although it seems that EVERYONE on this board enjoys haiku...

(And, yes, I KNOW that includes me in my last two posts in this thread...  ).

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*ED*

YOU ARE REALLY OBNOXIOUS.
STOP PICKING ON ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YOU RUIN THIS BOARD FOR ME.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: ED*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> YOU ARE REALLY OBNOXIOUS.
> STOP PICKING ON ME !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> YOU RUIN THIS BOARD FOR ME.


Well, at least by your definition this is a good post... it reflects how you feel, not a SAT score.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

YOU AROGANT *******

_ JackieJackal, please do not post like this anymore. Your response to Eds taunts are worse than what you think he's done. Please (if you haven't already) read Everyone Read Part 2_


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*i know your type Ed.*

You are a pipsqueak in real life,but seem to delight in picking
on people that have no ability to do anything about it.
You are a liar if you don't admit you go out of your way to be rude.

 JackieJackal, even if you don't think Ed keeps it civil, you must. Ed, please don't provoke Jackie anymore. If you have a problem with JackieJackal's posting styles, don't read them. It's that simple.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

Oh come on....calm down guys :naughty: 

This thread is meant to be about Rasheed Wallace....:no:


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*I didn't start it*

but i will be damned if i will let some guy like him say things
that he knows will cause a reply.

stop it ed !
the mods are real big on some posters,they go out of their way
to stop some people,but ed goes right on spewing.

he causes people to become angry then wonders what's wrong.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Edward Owelette is a first class _*Come on now. I can't allow you to call him that, just as I can't allow others to call other people names. If he's done it already, I'll get to it. As I've said before, if you have a problem with a poster, PM one of us mods, or (for example) TheRifleman. _
Did ya like the way I worded that, Erd???????????


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Well if you don't care about him, you won't let him provoke you. And do not turn this into another drama story thread, lets stick with Sheed and the rest of the TrailBlazers, now Paytonless.

_*If you feel the need to refer to the team as "Jail Blazers", we do not allow it. Same with other nicknames for any sports team. Thanks *_


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Jackie, Ed's original post wasn't baiting. He didn't mock what you said, he simply noted that it fell into haiku form. How that's malicious or insulting, I don't know.

You fired back at him and he fired back at you. You two have sniped at each other for a long time...while both of you should probably just lay off, neither of you is the victim and neither of you is the bully.

You two just seem to have a fundamental problem with each other. Preferably, such problems are handled by ignoring each other or going to PMs with gripes. PMs to each other or to moderators. Not to turning it into a family squabble for the whole board to "judge."

That's my perspective and all within the bounds of "my opinion."


----------



## Gym Rat (Dec 30, 2002)

I am going to close this thread. This has gone way too far and tempers are flairing.


----------

