# Red Hot! (Blazers @ T-Wolves GAMETHREAD)



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

*Red Hot!*

What a terrific first quarter! Mike Rice mentioned the need to get off to a good start to take the crowd out of it - mission accomplished! Running the floor, attacking the hoop, hitting the deep shots, and playing defense! If only we could make our free throws.

33-21! GO BLAZERS!


----------



## FB (Dec 31, 2002)

53-39 with 2 minutes left in the half. 

This is lookin' real good so far. I gotta say I've been skeptical of the recent success but it appears the guys have actually learned how to play well with eachother. Maybe that Sacto game will prove to have been the turnaround.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

53-44 at the half

go Blazers!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

I've found it very intruiging that the Blazers have been playing so well lately - despite the seeming relunctance of SAR to provide any meaningful contributions (stats).

Of course, I haven't actually watched any games over the past couple of weeks, so my "observations" have only been from the boscores. He "may" be contributing in other ways.

Zero points and 2 rebounds at the half, today, don't help his cause much, though


----------



## bfan1 (Mar 5, 2003)

I LOVE THIS GAME AND I LOVE THE BLAZERS!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ABM</b>!
> Of course, I haven't actually watched any games over the past couple of weeks, so my "observations" have only been from the boscores. He "may" be contributing in other ways.


He definitely is.



> Zero points and 2 rebounds at the half, today, don't help his cause much, though


Two rebounds in FIVE minutes ... you fail to mention that. If you were to prorate that out ... he gets 12 rebounds in Randolph's minutes.

Not to mention only one shot in the offensive flow.

No turnovers. 2 blocks. 1 assist.

That isn't bad in five minutes.

Play.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

78-64 after 3 
Go [email protected]#[email protected]#RF#[email protected]#DF#[email protected]#REFWER#$%[email protected]#[email protected]#


----------



## FB (Dec 31, 2002)

Up 78-65 at the end of the 3rd. Come on guys!

[rob schneider voice] You can do it! [/rob schneider voice]


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Playmaker0017</b>!
> 
> 
> He definitely is.


That's good to hear. It's reassuring to know that SAR is a "player" - that he will find _other_ ways to contribute in deference to the overall success of the team.

From what he's said (and I believe him), personal stats are not his motivating force......

Portland sure seems to be on a roll. Spring is in the air - and the Blazers seem to have planty of it these days. :yes:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

What's up with Shareef getting so little minutes?


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I have no radio here, just the moving Boxscore online... for those of you hearing/watching it live, what's the vibe? Are the Blazers going to pull it out?!?!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> What's up with Shareef getting so little minutes?


Cheeks hasn't quite figured out how to use him and Miles/Randolph have been very good together, as of late.

So, it is hard to find minutes for Reef who is underperforming. 

Play.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I'll answer my own question.... yes!!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

looks like someone shouldn't have guaranteed this one, huh?

Sam Cassell "We're going to win this Sunday; You can print that" 

oops.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

great game, i listened to the whole thing.

Miles is great,

ZBo is figuring his stuff out, putting the ball in the hoop during high pressure situations.

DA is starting to make shots.

Ratliff is becoming the most intimidating defensive player in the league.

great game, the next 10 games are huge though...


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Playing SAR less= WINNING


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Playing SAR less= WINNING


:naughty: Uhmmmmmm


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Playing SAR less= WINNING


Speed, 

Stop Baiting:rocket:


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Nice win to see happen. Or wish I could see. Aargh. As the guards shoot, so go the Blazers chances. This is what they could do to the NBA every night with consistent shooters. Zach is amazing in that he can keep taking it to a mobile, taller defensive stud like KG and thereby not take the team out of their offense. And, unsurprisingly, Theo Ratliff is getting puh-lenty of chances to block shots. The good part is that he's doing it without fouling out, and the team is grabbing the rebound instead of standing around.

In the eloquent words of Bo and Luke Duke, Yee haw!


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>NathanLane</b>!
> Playing SAR less= WINNING


Wow, I thought you were better then trolling.

Play.


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

How is it trolling?

Less is more.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Sars had 2 big baskets late in the 4th, to pull the blazers back to 9 then 11


----------



## KingSpeed (Oct 30, 2003)

Did I say that SAR didn't contribute?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

plus he had 1 rebound every 3 minutes... 6 in 17! 

Everybody does there part now... that is why they are succeeding
Every contribution helps. Off the bench or starting.

They are sticking up for one another and becoming a tight team! If I remember right.. I think its called chemistry


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It'll be interesting to see how long SAR puts up with limited minutes... I don't really blame him, but getting up 7 shots in 17 minutes is showing he's making sure he gets his up, in however many minutes he's in there.

Excellent win for the Blazers today... how often will a team win when its bench shoots 2-15 and only scores 8 points? At least they got some boards.

Looks like Miles, DA and Theo had good games. I wish I coulda seen it. 

I'm looking forward to getting a big burrito and watching the Utah-Denver game later tonight. Go Utah!

Ed O.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> It'll be interesting to see how long SAR puts up with limited minutes... I don't really blame him, but getting up 7 shots in 17 minutes is showing he's making sure he gets his up, in however many minutes he's in there.


He's averaging less then 10 shots in 28 minutes a game. That's not getting his up.

I don't like him putting up a lot of shots off the bench. It is why he is not hitting them ... he is trying to force the offense. He just can't excel doing that.



> I'm looking forward to getting a big burrito and watching the Utah-Denver game later tonight. Go Utah!


Go Utah? Go DENVER.

Sure, it keeps the lead stationary ... but it puts Utah on an even keel with us as we try to make a push. I would rather not try to beat out two teams.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Argh, of all the games to not be televised... I'd of given us a roughly 0% chance of winning this game. You just don't beat teams twice in such short succession, especially good/great ones.



> Everybody does there part now... that is why they are succeeding
> Every contribution helps. Off the bench or starting.
> 
> They are sticking up for one another and becoming a tight team! If I remember right.. I think its called chemistry


Um, why wasn't the same said of Rasheed when he was just doing his thing, contributing in various ways, not asserting himself to the detriment of his teammates, and earning millions upon millions of dollars in the process? Sounds very much like SAR, just with a bigger contribution. No offense TB, but many people are blinded by good character and let the stuff that actually matters -- play on the court -- slide.

SAR's productivity in this win is what you expect of a journeyman scrub. What happened to the feared PF combo that would always have a 20/10 guy on the floor keeping the pressure on the defense? The only thing I see happening is SAR's trade value declining for this summer... He comes with more questions attached than just about any player in the league, being the losingest active dude. Now that he's on a team that is sniffing the playoffs, his productivity drops to nil. Whether or not he's saying the right things and being a good teammate, that just ain't a good sign no matter how you spin it.



> Sure, it keeps the lead stationary ... but it puts Utah on an even keel with us as we try to make a push. I would rather not try to beat out two teams.


Uh, we _have_ to beat out both teams if we're to make the playoffs. Denver has the better record of the two right now, so rooting for them to lose makes perfect sense.

Dan


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

I'm visiting Minnesota and just happened to attend today's game.

Here is a link to some photos and my thoughts on the game...


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

Just a note on SAR -

DMiles and ZBo played really, really well... as such SAR probably didn't see a single minute at the 3 and probably played a fair bit as a dual-4 with Randolph. He playing on the weak-side low post for most of the sets, and whenever he got the ball he had to force it in order to get his shots up. Looked seriously disinterested, too...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Well Rahim is not doing what I expected after coming to the team. I am sure a lot of us feel the same way. It started out pertty well with him being pretty active and scoring. But certainly has tapered off. I would certainly prefer to have a constant 20/10 threat at the 4 for 48 minutes giving opposing teams plenty to worry about.

He use to average a lot of shots a game with Atlanta, and was highly productive. For what ever reason he is not being so efficient now. But he is making some contributions, just not lofty scoring ones. Hopefully he will get out of his funk. Certainly every player has them. Lets just hope he breaks out when we need him most.



Got an extra burrito Ed O? :yes:

I am not sure who to root for, but hepefully they will knock each other off in their final 2 games.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Shoot.
missed the whole game and even Wheels and Rice..
must have been a doozie !!

Did most of you listen to Wheels and Rice???

My only hope is Sportscenter tonight.


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Shoot.
> missed the whole game and even Wheels and Rice..
> must have been a doozie !!
> ...


Im with ya there, sportcenter


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

this might be wierd, but i think the best thing about this win was showing we didnt need SAR to win. I mean, we played awesome. Think how good this team could be if we got a better SG and made DA the backup PG/SG or traded him for a C.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

my goodness what stats !!

Theo was blocking everything including traffic:laugh:


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Theo is really looking like the corner piece in the Rasheed trade. His play is making everyone else play better defense. Players can take chances and know that Theo is going to be there to help if they need it.

What did Mike Rice call him today? The Minister of Defense? I just love how this team is playing now, would like to see them continue right on into the playoffs! :yes:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Once again, another enjoyable broadcast - courtesy of Wheels and Rice! :yes:


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

they must have been going crazy..:yes:


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Shareef's trade value is plummeting fast. He is being exposed as just another big volume player for bad teams, and that he needs to be the focal point to be effective (but he's not good enough to build your franchise around). 

I know that's an unfair thing to say at this point. He's in a tough spot and it's early. But I'm just not impressed so far.

Those of you who said trade Zach in favor of Reefer need to check yourself. ZBo is a gamer. Reefer is not. When Zach was a bench player he took over games and eventually willed himself into the starting lineup in spite of the fact that we already had Sheed there. Do you get that kind of vibe from Reefer?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> 
> Those of you who said trade Zach in favor of Reefer need to check yourself. ZBo is a gamer. Reefer is not. When Zach was a bench player he took over games and eventually willed himself into the starting lineup in spite of the fact that we already had Sheed there. Do you get that kind of vibe from Reefer?


SAR is a very good player. If Zach got hurt tomorrow I'd be entirely confident that SAR could step in and get 20+ points a game and 8+ rebounds a game.

You might be right that his trade value is suffering, but I think that most NBA teams will recognize that if he's put into a starting spot where he gets lots of touches he'll produce just like he always has. 

Getting back to trading ZR or trading SAR: it all depends on what we can get, IMO. If ZR brings us a player who's an all-star level 2 guard in his prime, I think that we'd really need to look at doing it... unless we can trade SAR for something similar, in which case we should hang onto ZR and move Shareef.

Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

I hate to trade big for small especially a 22 year old big that's already a 20/10 player. There's a (very) short list of smalls that I would entertain for ZBo. Kidd, Tmac, maybe Pierce. But I doubt those guys would be offered up for Zach.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think we should not trade Zach. T-Mac, Pierce and even a guy like Carter

We should aim to trade SAR for a second tier SG and some valuable filler. 

Guys like Quentin Richardson, Jamal Crawford, Joe Johnson, Rashard Lewis, Mike Dunleavy and Shane Battier should be pur targets.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

Nathan you will enjoy this post 

http://www.twolvescentral.com/frame_main.cfm?twcentral=mboard_message&spact=1&id=38285&tid=7735


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

that's the way ,uh huh, uh huh,I like it

"We were sort of one-shot-and-out. When [they're] crashing three or four guys to the boards, it's hard. You're in there rebounding, trying to box one out, and here comes another one." Quote Kevin

oh be still my heart,
second chance points

"What had everything to do with it was the Blazers' relentless rebounding, particularly on offense. That led to second-chance points, too many fouls by frustrated defenders and long, long Portland possessions that ground down the Wolves and the crowd."
Quote Kevin


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

I stayed up to see highlights and watched ESPN2..
Not one stinkin shot of Theo,No blocks,no mention,zip !!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

While listening to the game, it sounded like Zach out worked and hustled KG all game long, I remember listening to one stanzo where Zach got 3-4 offensive rebounds in a row over KG. KG's stat line looks nice for the game,but the only quarter he was really vitale in was the 3rd, I thought Zach played pretty good D on him again. Dmiles is just ludacrous. He is going to be such a great player in the league and it seems like he loves PDX and has found a home here. We would be stupid to put Ruben up for the expansion draft, his on the ball defense is excellent and his energy is 2nd to none. I would like to see Damon get a little more rest during the game, I am afraid he is going to wear down the stretch run. DA is still inconsistant,and would be a good backup or used as trade bait..but when he shoots it well and takes "quality" shots he is pretty effective. Theo is a manchild, I said this before and I will say it again...Defensive Player of the Year or bust...what he does for us is too amazing to put in a box score. I wish we had this team to start the season,because then my preseason prediction of us getting the 3rd seed would be more of a realistic chance. We still thought need a guy like Wesley and a solid backup point guard and center, but WE ARE GOOD!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I stayed up to see highlights and watched ESPN2..
> Not one stinkin shot of Theo,No blocks,no mention,zip !!


I wat hed sports sunday, early news on kgw, espn, and northwest cable sports tonight to see some lengthy highlights...i was disspointed...I am pretty upset this game was not on tv,listening to the game on the radio is going to give me a heart attack soon,lol


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Goldmember</b>!
> Shareef's trade value is plummeting fast.


Doubt it. 

He has 8+ years of 20/10. I think teams know what he brings to the table.



> He is being exposed as just another big volume player for bad teams, and that he needs to be the focal point to be effective (but he's not good enough to build your franchise around).


That's the most silly thing I've heard in a while. 

He needs to be the focal point to be effective ... I think that can be said of MOST offensive players. Is there any difference between that and KG or Duncan or most other offensive players?

What is a big volume player? 

By the way, I know you probably heard it on SportsCenter or something - so I hate destroying your notion that it's easy to put up solid numbers on bad teams. As a guard this holds true. They can't be doubled easily and zones are ineffective. Forwards on poor teams have a harder time getting good numbers.



> I know that's an unfair thing to say at this point. He's in a tough spot and it's early. But I'm just not impressed so far.


Nor am I. But, I said from the get-go -- he cannot come from the bench and be effective.



> Those of you who said trade Zach in favor of Reefer need to check yourself. ZBo is a gamer. Reefer is not. When Zach was a bench player he took over games and eventually willed himself into the starting lineup in spite of the fact that we already had Sheed there. Do you get that kind of vibe from Reefer?


How is Randolph this great gamer? In 9 months of decent basketball, he has somehow become great? I don't see it. 

Is he a VERY GOOD player? Sure. But, I haven't seen him be ANY MORE dominant then Reef is. (he's been more dominant then Reef in PDX, but not overall)

They are basically the same player except Randolph is selfish.

Therein lies the difference.

Play.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> That's the most silly thing I've heard in a while.


The jury's still out on whether or not it's true, but it is by no means a silly notion. On bad teams, Shareef has been very good. On a decent team, thus far, Shareef has more or less stunk it up.

The evidence is actually quite strong at this point, albeit over a very short period in the "after" portion.

Dan


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> The jury's still out on whether or not it's true, but it is by no means a silly notion. On bad teams, Shareef has been very good. On a decent team, thus far, Shareef has more or less stunk it up.


Again, if you understand the fundamentals of the sport, you'd understand that a FORWARD putting up solid numbers on a bum team is a tough thing to do. 

Reef faced constant doubles and triples. 

On a "decent" team, he has played VERY LIMITED minutes. Not just that, but most are minutes outside of his game. 

I said when he first got here that he wasn't going to be statistically effective off the bench.



> The evidence is actually quite strong at this point, albeit over a very short period in the "after" portion.


Again, there is no evidence. There is one game. That is not enough to base a player off of. 

The rest is bench minutes. 

But, if you look at effectiveness ... Reef is contributing in ways off the statistical area that you can't get from most guys.

Play.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

Greg Ostertag:

We'll take Brent Barry. You can have DA!


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Again, if you understand the fundamentals of the sport, you'd understand that a FORWARD putting up solid numbers on a bum team is a tough thing to do.


I see. Because I don't agree with you, I don't understand the fundamentals of the sport? And this coming from a guy who only cares to watch one player in the entire league.  

You can talk all you want about fundamentals, bench productivity, attitude, selfishness, etc., but the fact remains that there is very quantifiable evidence before us that does not reflect particularly well on SAR, and it's far more than just one game.. That may well change (I actually expect it will in a better situation for him), but it's merely conjecture.

Dan


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> I see. Because I don't agree with you, I don't understand the fundamentals of the sport? And this coming from a guy who only cares to watch one player in the entire league.


I don't watch any football, but I understand the fundamentals. 

Just watching one guy does not preclude me from understanding the overall sport. 





> You can talk all you want about fundamentals, bench productivity, attitude, selfishness, etc., but the fact remains that there is very quantifiable evidence before us that does not reflect particularly well on SAR, and it's far more than just one game.. That may well change (I actually expect it will in a better situation for him), but it's merely conjecture.


Considering I haven't been wrong about my predictions yet -- I'll stick by the fact that coming off the bench in this situation is not good for this type of player. 

Play.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TheoSaysNo</b>!
> Greg Ostertag:
> 
> We'll take Brent Barry. You can have DA!


Funnily enough, I'd go for that


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Just watching one guy does not preclude me from understanding the overall sport.


Maybe, maybe not. It certainly calls into question your appreciation and objectivity of all things not Shareef.



> Considering I haven't been wrong about my predictions yet -- I'll stick by the fact that coming off the bench in this situation is not good for this type of player.


Fine. That's not what I was referring to, though. Whether or not the situation is the problem, the cold, hard facts are right there in front of us. Shareef produce on bad teams and hasn't produce on a good/decent team. There's no getting around that FACT. The rest is explanation and justification, which is often a very fine line away from excuses.

Dan


----------

