# Zach says me and Amare are the future



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

last night post game interview Zach says amare is real good and we are the future 







Zbo is da man


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

Sounds alright with me. I get more impressed with Z-Bo after every game he plays. Where did Portland draft him at?...something like #18. What a steal!!!


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

I totally agree with ZBo. I think they are the Barkley and Malone of this generation.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

he's not explosive enough and can be a defensive liability at times.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> I totally agree with ZBo. I think they are the Barkley and Malone of this generation.


they stand a much better chance of being thejeff malone and the erick barkley of this generation.


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> he's not explosive enough and can be a defensive liability at times.


Z-Bo may not be as explosive or entertaining as say a Kenyon Martin. Yet, Z-Bo is a better rebounder, more skilled offensive player, and more relentless than Martin in my opinion. Kenyon may make the highlight reel with his dunks but at the end of the night, Z-Bo will more than likely have better numbers.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

Were we talking bout Kenyon?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Zach reminds me of barkley and amare reminds me of Alonzo


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

K mart lacks true offense Zach is a way better scorer than amare and K mart


----------



## DirtMcMoses (Aug 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> they stand a much better chance of being thejeff malone and the erick barkley of this generation.


Man, you know nothing about basketball. What league are you watching? Are you paying attention to the numbers they are putting up and realizing they are both under 22 years old.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, you know nothing about basketball. What league are you watching? Are you paying attention to the numbers they are putting up and realizing they are both under 22 years old.


Dude, it's ****in preseason.

I mean, Utah has a great record. That should tell you something about what preseason play means.

That said, I have been impressed with Zach, but I don't think he's gonna average 28 and 18 a game during the regular season.

If I had to compare Zach to any current player, it would be Elton Brand. As my friend pointed out the other day, they have similar games.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

> If I had to compare Zach to any current player, it would be Elton Brand. As my friend pointed out the other day, they have similar games.


I think that is a bad comparison. Elton is good at defence and rebounding, but he is not nearly the offensive threat that I think Zack is. Plus they move differently and handle the ball differently. Zack I think has better court vision and is better able to get others involved. Zack reminds me of a Webber that is not injury prone.


----------



## Arizona Bay (Jan 3, 2003)

I can see the Elton/Randolph comparison. Both have a great sense around the hoop, both are under sized, and both are good rebounders.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Both are soild rebounders, and solid scorers. When I've seen Elton Brand, he's done just fine scoring. He might not be the scoring threat that Zach might eventually become, but when the regular season comes around, as I said above, I don't think Zach will average more then 18 ppg.

They both also spend a lot of time in the paint, whether it be for rebounds or high percentage shots.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, you know nothing about basketball. What league are you watching? Are you paying attention to the numbers they are putting up and realizing they are both under 22 years old.


Truthfully, that was a pretty stupid comment. Randolph and Amare would easily be all-stars in the East ALREADY, and I think it's pretty clear that these young guys are going to be very good in the future, especially considering how good they already are.

They will be much closer to Barkley and Malone than the scrubs you mentioned.

I hate to see comments like, "so and soo isn't tall enough, atheltic enough, explosive enough". Modern fans have become so obsessed with highlight reels they forget what truely makes a good player. There have been dozens of starts in the NBA that weren't "explosive". The only explosion that matters is explosive scoring, and Zach can do that in bunches...so who gives a damn if he flys over people's heads or puts in the hook from the post?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DirtMcMoses</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, you know nothing about basketball. What league are you watching? Are you paying attention to the numbers they are putting up and realizing they are both under 22 years old.


1. I've probably forgotten more about the NBA than you know.

2. both being under 22 means nothing. Barkley and Malone are HOF players. Barkley in his 2nd year averaged 20-13. Shot 57% from the floor. Former MVP, iirc. 

Malones 2nd year, he averaged 20-10 and shot 50%. 

Malone has averaged over 20 ppg EVERY year in his career cept his rookie year. He's at a career 25 ppg clip. He had a stretch of 27, 29, 31, 29, 28, 27, 25, 26, 25, 27, and 27 points per game! He's a former MVP.

Zach and Amare will not be this "generations" Malone and Barkley, and they stand a better chance of being the next Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley. And if you had a clue, you'd see I'm not saying they're going to be statistically the next Erick and Jeff, I'm saying they're not going to be the next Charles and Karl.


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

Is it just me, or are a lot of the Zach Randolph fans here becoming a lot like Eddy Curry fans?

Well, maybe not all Eddy Curry fans... maybe more like BEEWILL. It's the same stuff he was doing.

Look everyone, Zach is not going to be an All Star this year. That might happen in future years, but not this year.

I'm just as excited about his potential as everyone, but we have to realize that dominating the Preseason is not at all the same as being able to dominate in the regular season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> 
> They will be much closer to Barkley and Malone than the scrubs you mentioned.


first of all, Jeff Malone was no scrub. Secondly, I was not saying they are going to be scrubs because I compared them to two other guys who had the same last names as the two improbable, illogical and silly comparisons that were made.

It's just true, they have a better chance at being 2 average players (granted, Erick really sucked) than they do being this generations two "first vote" hall of famers.



> I hate to see comments like, "so and soo isn't tall enough, atheltic enough, explosive enough". Modern fans have become so obsessed with highlight reels they forget what truely makes a good player. There have been dozens of starts in the NBA that weren't "explosive". The only explosion that matters is explosive scoring, and Zach can do that in bunches...so who gives a damn if he flys over people's heads or puts in the hook from the post?


you're not making sense here. You say that they will be closer to K Malone and C Barkley then the others, but than say that the modern fan is so obsessed with the highlight reel they forget what truley makes a good player...

isn't that kind of arguing...MY POINT?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

you dudes dont know nothing about basketball , Tim Duncan is not highlight film material but he gets the job done , and comparing Zach to elton they are none alike , elton is great rebounder great defender avg offense , Zach can score on anybody great hands great on the boards , you guys are just hating ,


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*whoa !!*

Chas Barkley was a fat little butter ball when he started out..
I don't remember him looking any better than young Zach..if as good.

Zach has the potential to be a very very good player.
Man..isn't it abit early to be saying what Zach isn't going to be??

Zach is the best player we have had in many years.
I had hoped Bonzi would be that player,but he suffers from the 
ahem..personality disorder..that uncle sheed has.

Although in all fairness,so far Bonzi has been "nice" to us.

Zach is already dominating in games..let's let him develop.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*i am posting twice..i can't believe this*

"Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley"

you must be kidding..

what on earth are you basing this on?????????

Amare is one of the most exciting young players there is
in the NBA..
I love him !!


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>cimalee</b>!
> you dudes dont know nothing about basketball , Tim Duncan is not highlight film material but he gets the job done , and comparing Zach to elton they are none alike , elton is great rebounder great defender avg offense , Zach can score on anybody great hands great on the boards , you guys are just hating ,


Uhh, okay BEEWILL....

You say here:



> comparing Zach to elton they are none alike


but then you say



> elton is *great rebounder* great defender avg offense


And then about Zach, who you said is not at ALL like Elton Brand:



> Zach can score on anybody great hands *great on the boards*


Uhh, Rebounding and getting boards are the same thing.

By the way, Zach is not going to average more then 18 ppg this season man. This is just preseason play.

Come on man. You should know better then to call everyone out in this thread and say we know nothing about basketball. It makes you come across like a little ignorant 14 year old poster. Think before you make comments like this.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I figured that most people would have understood what I was saying, (and infact, I think most people did)..but apparently I was wrong.

I'm saying that it's silly to compare Zach and Amare to Charles Barkley and Karl Malone, and right now, they stand a better chance to be the next Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley...cause you see, Jeff and Erick share the same last names as Karl and Charles...

I'm basically saying that Amare and Zach will not be the "next generations" two best PF's to ever play the game, or the two best PF's to play in the league at the time.

It's just too early to say anything like that about BOTH Zach and Amare, they're young, and unproven.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

It'll be interesting to see what becomes of Zach Randolph. If he turns out to be another Elton Brand, I'll be happy. Brand is a solid scorer, a very efficient rebounder, a smart player, and a leader. He's an underrated shot-blocker, too - he's perhaps the best shot-blocker around for a player his size. 

Randolph has all the tools to be another Elton Brand, though he's a little more aggressive at this stage in his career and has better hops. Brand seems to understand that seasons are long and punishing and will more often settle for the 10-12 footer, rather than really work inside for a 6-foot hook that seems to be Zach's bread and butter. But Brand's outstanding field goal percentage with the number of shots he takes is to be envied. 

However, I agree with the folks who say that we've seen precious little of Zach outside of preseason and the Mavericks' series. That'll change if The Oregonian reporters are right, and Cheeks is leaning toward starting the big lineup...


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*i understood exactly what you said*

"and right now, they stand a better chance to be the next Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley"

i am speechless.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> "and right now, they stand a better chance to be the next Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley"
> 
> i am speechless.


partly because what i said is TRUE. Come on now, you're comparing 2 guys who haven't show anything to warrent this insane comparison, to two future HOF players, one of which has averaged over 25 ppg over his whole career, and has over 36,000 points.

Let's not jump the gun on Zach here.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> partly because what i said is TRUE. Come on now, you're comparing 2 guys who haven't show anything to warrent this insane comparison, to two future HOF players, one of which has averaged over 25 ppg over his whole career, and has over 36,000 points.
> ...


At the same time, you shouldn't jump the gun and say they're both going to suck.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> At the same time, you shouldn't jump the gun and say they're both going to suck.


if you had paid attention I never said they were going to suck, I said they stand a better chance at being just average players vs being 2 of the best PF's of their generation, like Malone and Barkley were


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> "and right now, they stand a better chance to be the next Jeff Malone and Erick Barkley"
> 
> i am speechless.


Well, if you really remember Barkley as a butterball who didn't look any better than ZR when he was young, I can understand your confusion.

The reality is that Charles kicked butt early in his career.

He played in all 82 games, starting 60, on a VERY good (58 wins) 76er team. He averaged 14.0/8.6, shooting 54.5% from the field.

He was 21 when his rookie year started... about 5 months older than ZR was when he started his second year.

Now, Barkley really stepped up in his second year. I believe Hap mentioned some of his numbers, but they're simply great for a 22 year old (20.0/12.8/57.2). His third and fourth years were even better... and he was great for about a decade. (He shot *60%* from the field in 79 games in 89-90... wow!)

The fact is that while Zach COULD be as good as Barkley turned out to be, the odds are simply too long for me to consider probable. I would say that while it seems most likely that ZR will evolve into a borderline all-star (like Elton Brand has been), I would say he's got a better chance to turn into a Gary Trent (average player... not even an average starter) than Charles Barkley, who's simply one of the top 15 or 20 players in the history of the game.

I don't want to get into too much about Amare/Karl Malone, but Malone's career started a year later biologically but followed a similar path in the early years to Barkley's. He never had the absolutely dominating years Charles had statistically, but his game has lasted longer and, again, I would be shocked if Amare turns out to be the leading scorer in NBA history like Karl Malone will end up being when he retires.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> The fact is that while Zach COULD be as good as Barkley turned out to be, the odds are simply too long for me to consider probable. *I would say that while it seems most likely that ZR will evolve into a borderline all-star (like Elton Brand has been)*, I would say he's got a better chance to turn into a Gary Trent (average player... not even an average starter) than Charles Barkley, who's simply one of the top 15 or 20 players in the history of the game.


I wanted to clarify one thing, for those who might not remember my stance on ZR this time last year: I SPECIFICALLY posted several times that I doubted ZR would prove to be as good as Brand.

While I haven't been proven wrong just yet, based on the way ZR played last year, the way he worked in summer league and the way he's starting this preseason, I've changed my mind. Not worth a lot, I know, but wanted to point it out.

Ed O.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> if you had paid attention I never said they were going to suck, I said they stand a better chance at being just average players vs being 2 of the best PF's of their generation, like Malone and Barkley were











So what are you trying to say here Hap? They don't suck, but they could suck, but they aren't going to be Hall of Fame suckers? I'm lost and I want you to know that this totally *sucks!*


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> if you had paid attention I never said they were going to suck, I said they stand a better chance at being just average players vs being 2 of the best PF's of their generation, like Malone and Barkley were


I payed attention to the name Erick Barkley. 

He sucks. 

I know, I know. You were making a "clever" play on the last names of the players in question. And you DID say they would be average in teh 16th post on this thread. 

But you're still wrong. The AVERAGE player in the league scores 8pts and gets 3.5 rebounds per game. You believe Zach and Amare will be 8 and 3.5 guys? 

Whatever you say dude.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> I know, I know. You were making a "clever" play on the last names of the players in question. And you DID say they would be average in teh 16th post on this thread.
> 
> But you're still wrong. The AVERAGE player in the league scores 8pts and gets 3.5 rebounds per game. You believe Zach and Amare will be 8 and 3.5 guys?


ugh..

I did not say they would be average in the sense you're claiming, nor did I say they would be average period.

1st post, I said they stand a better chance at being the next Erick and Jeff, which is true. They're not going to be the next Karl Malone and Chuck Barkley.


The 16th post I never said they will be "average", I said they stand a better shot at being average than they do being hall of fame players who dominated the game.

Again, in post 18, because some people have a hard time recognizing simple arguments, I said


> It's just true, *they have a better chance at being 2 average players (granted, Erick really sucked) than they do being this generations two "first vote" hall of famers.*


how is this so hard to understand?

Thats like saying Tony Parker is going to be the next generations Isaiah Thomas. It's just silly to say it.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

All I want to say is that Zach Randolph is going to soon be Portland's premier player, if he can get his defense together. He isn't scared to play in the post and gets his points and rebounds without really hoggin the ball. He is IMO Mr. Hustle on this Portland squad. It is fun to see a player that doesn't mind doing the little things to make the team better and that is what Zach does.









What I want to know is, "Can you feel it?"


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*

Not that Hap can't argue his own points, but CSI was depressing and I need to try to cleanse the visual palate...



> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> I payed attention to the name Erick Barkley.
> 
> ...


Considering Jeff Malone was WELL above average, and Erick Barkley was well below average, I'd say that the average of the two players is average, and average was implied.



> But you're still wrong. The AVERAGE player in the league scores 8pts and gets 3.5 rebounds per game. You believe Zach and Amare will be 8 and 3.5 guys?
> 
> Whatever you say dude.


I don't think he's wrong, and considering it's an opinion of a pair of projected careers, I'm not sure he CAN be wrong at this point.

The logic of what he's saying totally holds up. Let's take a quick look:

Scale of 1-10 for careers:

1: Totally sucks
5: Average
6: Fringe all-star
7: All-star
8: MVP
9: Hall of Famer
10: Top 50

(Each number above 5 is inclusive, because obviously a top 50 player is a HoFer, but the converse isn't necessarily true.)

Using this scale for the sake of discussion, the original statement was that Zach and Amare would be 10's. Hap said they'd be closer to 5's. It's possible that Hap thinks they'll be 7's, but it would be true to say that they'll be closer to 5's than to 10's.

It doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they'll be 5's. Just that the odds of them being 10's aren't good.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: i understood exactly what you said*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> It doesn't necessarily mean he thinks they'll be 5's. Just that the odds of them being 10's aren't good.
> 
> Ed O.


to quote Bill Schonley, 'bingo, bango bongo"


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Well I don't know about you, but I am glad that is behind us now!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> he's not explosive enough and can be a defensive liability at times.


I'll take not being explosive enough and "somewhat" but not really a defensive liabilty at times when he gets 27 and 12 a night.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> "I hate to see comments like, "so and soo isn't tall enough, atheltic enough, explosive enough". Modern fans have become so obsessed with highlight reels they forget what truely makes a good player. There have been dozens of starts in the NBA that weren't "explosive". The only explosion that matters is explosive scoring, and Zach can do that in bunches...so who gives a damn if he flys over people's heads or puts in the hook from the post?


Well said. I agree completely.


----------



## The Enigma (May 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thylo</b>!
> I think that is a bad comparison. Elton is good at defence and rebounding, but he is not nearly the offensive threat that I think Zack is. Plus they move differently and handle the ball differently. Zack I think has better court vision and is better able to get others involved. Zack reminds me of a Webber that is not injury prone.


Zach is very similar to Brand who btw averaged 20 and 10 in his very first season in the league. Many seem to forget that Brand is only 24 years old and that he was only 20 years old for the bulk of his rookie season.

They are similar in size and height and they both possess an offensive rebounding talent, which most would consider their top talent.

They are eerily similar (from a talent standpoint), With Brand being (much) better defensively and Randolph being better offensively. They are similar rebounders (practically identical in this regard), and they are both blue-collar, hard-nosed workers.

_- Overall they may be more alike than any other two players in the league._

As far as Zach being reminiscent of Webber… 
Zach has absolutely no aspect in his game that resembles Webber. He is not reminiscent of the younger more athletic Webber nor is he comparable to the now excellent passing, superb ball handling and outside shooting Webber. 



> Originally posted by <b>Public Defender</b>!
> He's an underrated shot-blocker, too - he's perhaps the best shot-blocker around for a player his size.


He is actually the best on ball shot blocker in the entire league (meaning he blocks the shot of his own man in individual man to man defense).



> Randolph has all the tools to be another Elton Brand, though he's a little more aggressive at this stage in his career and has better hops.


He is a bit more aggressive offensively but not nearly as aggressive on the defensive end (he does not have better hops than Brand either). Randolph is a quicker player however Brand runs the floor better.



> Brand seems to understand that seasons are long and punishing and will more often settle for the 10-12 footer, rather than really work inside for a 6-foot hook that seems to be Zach's bread and butter. But Brand's outstanding field goal percentage with the number of shots he takes is to be envied.


This is in large part due to the fact that he (Brand) is continually the first option on teams void of shooting (Zack has yet to be a first option on an NBA team). If Randolph were on a team in which he were constantly doubled (even tripled) it would be in his best interest to develop his mid range game. 

With that said… a large part of Brands damage is still done underneath the basket off offensive tip-ins and put backs (the ability to hit the mid range shot only speaks to his offensive diversity). 


_Brand is a better player than Jermaine O'Neal just to keep things in perspective._


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*this is why stats are always deceiving*

You could take several of us and we could prove our point with
stats and all of us have some validity.

In my line of work,stats are gathered daily,and the employees
continue to suffer the more stats are gathered.
If the employees gather stats,they show a much different picture.

So who's right??

Back to Barkley..
Barkley became a "star" with his mouth in later years.

I have watched basketball for a long time,and I don't recall
Barkley ever labeled a star,or even being a star on any team
he has ever been on.
His big fat butt backing into people was his biggest weapon.

I will give him credit for one thing,and it's the same work ethic
that I see in Zach..
He always tried to finish a play,and give it his best.

He was always undersized and played large is the way I remember most press reports on Barkley..

Zach just plays large..even now.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: this is why stats are always deceiving*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> 
> Back to Barkley..
> Barkley became a "star" with his mouth in later years.
> ...


Are you *KIDDING*?

Barkley was a star since his Auburn days; he was SEC player of the year there before going pro. The reason he was left off of the 1984 US Olympic team by Bobby Knight was political: he was too big of a star, in some respects, and wasn't perceived to have the work ethic and team attitude that Knight wanted... but he was considered by some observers to be the best player in the tryouts.

Charles was considered one of the best players in the NBA when he was traded to Phoenix, and he won the MVP in 92-93.

I truly hope you're kidding about him not being considered a star... maybe you should brush up on your recent NBA history if you really can't remember that he was labeled a star.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*honestly ed*

i am not kidding

To make this clearer to Ed..
I hate to get him too excited..


Barkley and Zach I think,could end up on the same level.
One not better than the other.
If I were looking into my crystal ball..

I think the talk of Zach being a superstar,etc..is a bit over
stated..
And that's the way I remember Barkley..
a terrific player,but not that big of a star.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

Stop teasing Ed, Jackiejackal.

Star in college.
Star NBA rookie.
Original Dream Teamer (a star only club).
MVP (because of stellar season)
PHX's scoring, rebounding star.
How many all-star appearances?
Named one the 50 Greatest (another star only club)
Future basketball HOFer.

He was nothing but a star throughout his basketball career.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*ok,i won't tease him anymore*

The NBA is so bad and so watered down,even Barkley would look good
in a comeback.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: honestly ed*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> i am not kidding


Then you either have a REALLY bad memory or you simply don't know basketball. Charles Barkley was a star throughout his career, and SLAM pointed to just a few of his major accomplishments.

Your denial of his stardom based on your lack of recall of those events don't really change the reality of the situation.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> The NBA is so bad and so watered down,even Barkley would look good in a comeback.


That's one of the most contradictory statements imaginable. Let's break apart the assumptions, implications, and non-stated facts, and see what it adds up to...

Barkley was just a good player.

Zach is likely to be just as good.

Barkley got tons and tons of accolades despite being just a good player.

Barkley did so with peers the likes of MJ, Bird, Magic, Patrick, Hakeem, The Mailman, The Admiral, Clyde, Isaiah, Dr. J, McHale, Worthy, Kareem, etc. I.e. probably the greatest collection of talent the NBA has ever seen at one time, and clearly the peak of the league's popularity.

Zach is not likely to be a super star.

The NBA is watered down to the point that Barkley would still look good.

Thus, what we're left with is you comparing a player who was good by your standards (exceptional by everyone else's, but that doesn't even matter when refuting your argument) in a very strong era to a possibly as competitive player in a watered down era. In other words, an over the hill, over-weight, broken down Barkley could still be as good as up and coming Randolph. Wouldn't that clearly indicate how good he really was back in the day?

It's ok to admit you have nothing to back up your point and waive the white flag...

Dan


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>antibody</b>!
> Sounds alright with me. I get more impressed with Z-Bo after every game he plays. Where did Portland draft him at?...something like #18. What a steal!!!


Yes he was a steal. Overall though drafts are getting Deeper. With more HS students coming out, and more Euros coming over.



On another note...

I think Howie should be asked to stop posting pictures of Jim Carrey.

Personally I know he scares me.

-Petey


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Nice to meet you*

I didn't know Ed had a son .

P.S.
I said Barkley was a terrific player.
not good..

I don't remember everybody falling over themselves to sign
him..
He had practically campaigned on the tv for a job.
Portland could have had him.
He said on tv he would like to come to Portland,and for
years has snubbed us because of it.

Forgot that, boys ???

Dkap..read my notes again.
Zach is likely to be as good as Chas..
why not???
Superstar ?
Don't know.
I doubt it.
You got a problem with that??

And yes I will say it again..
The NBA is soooo bad,that Barkley could probably make a comeback.
Come to think of it..we could use him to back his butt into Shaq.

Bill it as the THE TWO *******S


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Barkley said he would love to play with Clyde prior to getting traded to Phoenix (he wanted out of Philly _really_ bad; did you forget that?), but trading for superstars is generally a stroke of luck more than anything. I don't see what that has to do with what's being talked about.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Nice to meet you*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> 
> I don't remember everybody falling over themselves to sign
> him..


Well, a guy has to be a free agent before another team can sign him. I don't have his transaction history in front of me, but I don't think Barkley was ever a free agent.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*don't you remember he was campaigning*

on tv and in the press,and ,many a time he indicated he would like to join the Blazers.
I have always felt that's why he seems to get in a dig whenever
possible.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

It's funny, TE, in debating my post you left off the part where I said I'd be happy if Zach became as good as Elton Brand. Generally, I think we agree - Brand is a very good player! 



> Originally posted by <b>The Enigma</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Critic (Jun 19, 2003)

> he's perhaps the best shot-blocker around for a player his size.


Oh...well I think Ben Wallace is about the same size (height) as Brand...and he's a better shot blocker for sure.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Critic</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh...well I think Ben Wallace is about the same size (height) as Brand...and he's a better shot blocker for sure.


Once again it comes down to seeing an actual stat but I've never been terribly impressed (i.e. in results vs hype) with Ben Wallace as a great one-on-one defender. Where I've seen him really shine is off-the-ball defense. The way he is able to drop off his man to make a defensive play is a very impressive display of athletism coupled with anticipation and effort.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed? when'd you get a kid?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> 1. I've probably forgotten more about the NBA than you know.
> ...


Barkley and Malone got minutes in their 2nd years. Zach is just now starting to get his and he looks like a 20-10 guy easily, if not more. Plus, being realistic, they averaged that in age when the average team scored over 110 points a game.

What you said earlier was ridiculas because Zach and Amare are already better than Erick and Jeff, so there is Zero chance they will be the next, "them". I think Zach and Amare will be the premier PF's in the league in 3-4 years.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Barkley said he would love to play with Clyde prior to getting traded to Phoenix (he wanted out of Philly _really_ bad; did you forget that?), but trading for superstars is generally a stroke of luck more than anything. I don't see what that has to do with what's being talked about.
> 
> Dan


I remember when Philly offered us Barkley for Porter, Kersey and Duckworth. I really wish we would have made that deal now. Just another thing to kick ourselves over!!!

PG: Micheal Jordan
SG: Clyde Drexler
C: Arvysas Sabonis
PF: Moses Malone
SF: Charles Barkely

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Yega1979</b>!
> What you said earlier was ridiculas because Zach and Amare are already better than Erick and Jeff...


Didn't Jeff average 20 pts per game throughout his career? He definitely wasn't a scrub or an insulting player to be compared to IMO. At the peak of his career, I felt he was a borderline All Star. 

STOMP


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Amare reminds me a lot more of a young Kemp than a young Malone...


----------



## Obi-Wan Nowitzki (Jun 2, 2003)

I don't really see how you can say that Amare and Randolph will become the two best PFs in the league when Duncan and KG are both 27 and Amare and Randolph are 22 (well, Amare will be in a couple weeks). I REALLY don't see either one of them (Amare or Zack) becoming better than Duncan and Garnett until the twilight of TD and KG's careers.

You guys are hoping that Randolph/Amare will be AS GOOD AS Barkley and Malone when in fact Duncan has passed both of them at their peaks and you could make a case that KG has already beaten out Barkley's prime.

The bottom line is Amare and Zack won't be as good as Duncan and Garnett until the very end of TD and KG's careers and by that time Amare and Zack will be past their primes and outdone by some other up-and-coming PF stud. Am I wrong here?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MavsFaN02</b>!
> The bottom line is Amare and Zack won't be as good as Duncan and Garnett until the very end of TD and KG's careers and by that time Amare and Zack will be past their primes and outdone by some other up-and-coming PF stud. Am I wrong here?


I think it's pretty obvious that Zach and Amare can forget surpassing Duncan and KG during the next 5 years or so. They are probably the two best forwards in the game over the last 5 years and are already HOF locks and barely into their respective primes. Both are much bigger then Zach and Amare, and earn All-NBA Defense honors every year. Thats not to say/acknowledge that they (ZR & AS) aren't promising young players putting up some impressive numbers, but Tim and Kevin are the very best in the game.

STOMP


----------



## Obi-Wan Nowitzki (Jun 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it's pretty obvious that Zach and Amare can forget surpassing Duncan and KG during the next 5 years or so. They are probably the two best forwards in the game over the last 5 years and are already HOF locks and barely into their respective primes. Both are much bigger then Zach and Amare, and earn All-NBA Defense honors every year. Thats not to say/acknowledge that they (ZR & AS) aren't promising young players putting up some impressive numbers, but Tim and Kevin are the very best in the game.
> ...


I'm not saying that they're not going to be great players... It's just that the gist of this thread is that they will be the BEST players at their position, which isn't true.

Sure they may get an all-star bid here and there, but with Duncan, KG, and Dirk that leaves at most one PF spot on the West's all star team in next few years because Dirk, Duncan, and KG are locked up in contracts for five years at the least, I believe. Do you honestly see any of the three being traded?


----------

