# Luke Jackson "I would love to be in Portland"



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Portland Tribune 

A guy who wants to be in Portland..appreciates the history of the team..



> “Portland’s a great basketball city,” he says. He thinks the fans will get behind the team “with the right people on the Blazers.”
> 
> “Would I like to be picked in the ‘teens’ or go to Portland? That’s a tough one. I would love to be in Portland,” he says.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

How's about being picked in the 20's or 30's?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tlong</b>!
> How's about being picked in the 20's or 30's?


I think that's what he's saying... be picked in the teens or by Portland at 23. 

He probably doesn't see himself slipping to the 30's any more than he sees himself going in the top 10.

Ed O.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I still think we will take Jameer Nelson and Luke Jackson with our picks... just a non intelligent hunch is all :whoknows:


but at this point in time we do not even know the lottery order


----------



## Leroy131 (Mar 11, 2004)

> I still think we will take Jameer Nelson and Luke Jackson with our picks


Which might not be such a terrible way to go. I still like the idea of going after Telfair or Devin Harris at the point, but those 2 guys will be immediate if unspectacular contributors. I doubt there are two smarter, grittier players in this year's pool and both are great shooters and passers which this team needs. Nelson isn't Steven Nash, but he's not Mateen Cleaves either...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Leroy131</b>!
> 
> 
> Which might not be such a terrible way to go. I still like the idea of going after Telfair or Devin Harris at the point, but those 2 guys will be immediate if unspectacular contributors. I doubt there are two smarter, grittier players in this year's pool and both are great shooters and passers which this team needs. Nelson isn't Steven Nash, but he's not Mateen Cleaves either...


I have ZERO problem taking Nelson along with Jackson in this years draft, as long as we get our stud shooting guard. I think those 2 experienced draft picks would just make our bench so useful, because I think we will be a title contending team if we got say a Ray Allen type player. We get Damon his backup who can contribute right away, and Luke can also back up Ray. I think with those picks, we would still be youthful and give ourselves an even better shot to win it all.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that taking Jameer and Luke Jackson would be a terrible draft. If either or both of them are good enough to play on next year's Blazers teams, we're going to be back in the lottery again.

Portland's already got a lot of average-to-above average players. We've got players who are capable of being role players on good teams (with the exception of at the backup 1, which we should be able to address in free agency or through trade).

We should be looking at getting players who have the potential to be special players, not ones who will be able to help a mediocre team eek out a few more wins in their rookie seasons.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I think that taking Jameer and Luke Jackson would be a terrible draft. If either or both of them are good enough to play on next year's Blazers teams, we're going to be back in the lottery again.
> 
> Portland's already got a lot of average-to-above average players. We've got players who are capable of being role players on good teams (with the exception of at the backup 1, which we should be able to address in free agency or through trade).
> ...


so who at 13 and our 2nd pick are going to be good enough to play on next years team?


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

the 13th pick or what ever it ends up being will be the most interesting pick. Seems like lots of optons may pop up


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I think that taking Jameer and Luke Jackson would be a terrible draft. If either or both of them are good enough to play on next year's Blazers teams, we're going to be back in the lottery again.
> 
> Portland's already got a lot of average-to-above average players. We've got players who are capable of being role players on good teams (with the exception of at the backup 1, which we should be able to address in free agency or through trade).
> ...



Maybe you'd like to share a couple of names with us. Remember this also Ed O. Everey team needs a toughness about them if they hope to win anything. Portland has zero toughness or heart. I'd love to get a guy like Jackson who has an abundance of both. Nelson on the other hand would not be my first choice. We already have him as a left handed veteran in Damon.


----------



## Leroy131 (Mar 11, 2004)

That's the main thing that bothers me about Jameer Nelson - he reminds me of Damon. I like a little variety, which is why the other options are more appealing.
:yes:


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

I like Jameer, but isn't he kinda like Damon?



> I think that taking Jameer and Luke Jackson would be a terrible draft. If either or both of them are good enough to play on next year's Blazers teams, we're going to be back in the lottery again.


I disagree with that. Look at Dallas this year - they have an all-star roster, but they still got 2 solid college rookies to start for them. You don't always have to draft on "potential", more times than not that potential doesn't turn out.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

It would be nice to get a taller PG as well. Jameer is still only 6'-0" tall


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed, while I usually agree with you, here I cannot. 

Nelson may, if he's fortunate, could be an average NBA PG and I would certainly hope we'd do better with a #13 pick. I agree with Warkentien (or however it's spelled) that there will always be an impact player at #13- but Nelson is not an impact player. 

As to Jackson, I would agree he's worth a very low 1st round pick as he could be a good reserve SF in his career, is that what we really need? Another SF behind Miles, Patterson & Woods?

I'd rather see back court shooting and a good backup center.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Trader Bob</b>!
> I still think we will take Jameer Nelson and Luke Jackson with our picks... just a non intelligent hunch is all :whoknows:
> 
> 
> but at this point in time we do not even know the lottery order


I like it TB. It seems people are playing up the Stoudamire-Nelson comparison too much. They are both PGs, and they are both under 6'-0", but they really don't play THAT much alike. Nelson has a much better ability to get into the heart of a defense and find the open man. He also has better hands defensively and handles the ball a little better. Damon has a little more range on his jumpshot right now. Basically Damon is more of a scoring PG and Jameer is more of a set up PG who can still score when the opportunity arises. I am one who likes Stoudamire as our PG, but I do think that Nelson has the potential to be a better player. And I just love Jackson's game all the way around. I like the picks.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> so who at 13 and our 2nd pick are going to be good enough to play on next years team?


I don't know. Hopefully no one. That's my point. I break it down like this:

If the Blazers draft young players, they won't be good enough to play on a good team or a mediocre team (I'm thinking Portland won't dip down to being a bad team, where even young players might get some run).

If the Blazers draft experienced players (Nelson and Jackson, for example) they would be good enough to play on a mediocre team, but not on a good team.

I'm not opposed to taking Jackson at 23... I'm on record there. I just don't want to take TWO guys who are more experienced, because I don't think there's room for 2 players in the rotation next year and if there's not we should roll the dice on higher upside/younger players.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Being a Duck, of course I'm biased so bare with me. Luke Jackson is the man and needs to be taken at 23 unless somebody drasitcally slips. I have never seen anyone with so much heart and determination as Luke. His ability to carry a team on his back and make the big buckets will be a vital asset to whatever team picks him up, and I for one hope that we do. However, I wouldn't draft him at 13 as a player like Telfair or JR Smith may be of more value to the teams future.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Yao Mania</b>!
> 
> I disagree with that. Look at Dallas this year - they have an all-star roster, but they still got 2 solid college rookies to start for them.


Would those players have played much, if at all, last year? No.

Why did they play this year? Because the Mavs were worse. NVE wasn't there, and Best was hurt almost all year. That opened up time for Daniels in the backcourt. If the Mavs hadn't dealt NVE, Daniels might not even have stuck on Dallas.

By trading Raef, Nelson was forced to go small even more often than he had the year before (again, when the Mavs were good). This opened up time for Howard. He probably would have got some minutes on their team last year, but there's no way he would have started 29 games.



> You don't always have to draft on "potential", more times than not that potential doesn't turn out.


Older players flop, too. Trajan Langdon. Melvin Ely. Every type of player at every place in the draft has a chance at flopping, and I don't think that the cost-benefit of a young inexperienced player with higher upside is worse than an older experienced player with a lower ceiling.

Of course a team doesn't HAVE to draft on potential, but in Portland's case I think they're well positioned to do that this year.

Ed O.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You guys should look at Kirk Snyder with the 23rd pick. He is going to be a very good SG prospect coming out of Nevada. His handles and shooting are a little shakey, but with more practice plus not facing all the gimmick defenses on the college level, he should do very well.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I hope Jackson becomes a quality NBA player... but I see him being another Casey Jacobsen or even our own Dan Dickau... not athletic enough for today's face paced, up and down NBA game.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

SheedSoNasty- I read your assessment of Jackson and I can't help thinking that it, and $2.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.

Jackson is a bit weak & slow to ever be much of a player in the NBA. I think, at best, he could be a steady reserve SF- especially in light of his smarts. But that's about it. That said, a good reserve player is about what one would expect with a low first round pick. However, we have Patterson (who with his contract & backround ain't going anywhere), Woods (gifted athletically which means he'll always get a second chance) and maybe Outlaw. When the heck will Jackson get to play? When will he ever get to be an asset? Yeah, he's low 1st round material, but we seem to be the wrong team for him. He'd be another player on the I/R all year with nose hair tendonitis.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SheedSoNasty</b>!
> Being a Duck, of course I'm biased so bare with me. Luke Jackson is the man and needs to be taken at 23 unless somebody drasitcally slips. I have never seen anyone with so much heart and determination as Luke. His ability to carry a team on his back and make the big buckets will be a vital asset to whatever team picks him up, and I for one hope that we do. However, I wouldn't draft him at 13 as a player like Telfair or JR Smith may be of more value to the teams future.


HELL YEAH!!:bbanana:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BLAZER PROPHET</b>!
> SheedSoNasty- I read your assessment of Jackson and I can't help thinking that it, and $2.50, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck's.
> 
> Jackson is a bit weak & slow to ever be much of a player in the NBA. I think, at best, he could be a steady reserve SF- especially in light of his smarts. But that's about it. That said, a good reserve player is about what one would expect with a low first round pick. However, we have Patterson (who with his contract & backround ain't going anywhere), Woods (gifted athletically which means he'll always get a second chance) and maybe Outlaw. When the heck will Jackson get to play? When will he ever get to be an asset? Yeah, he's low 1st round material, but we seem to be the wrong team for him. He'd be another player on the I/R all year with nose hair tendonitis.


I think that Jackson could be a steady player at either the 2 or the 3. Given our weak backcourt, Jackson could serve as a great backup player at either SG or SF if we get a great 2 (Allen, etc.). Also, you have to consider that Patterson may not resign once his deal is up and Woods... well... do you honestly see him panning out? I'd love it if he did, but his downfalls just seem like too much to overcome for a guy who seemingly lacks so much confidence (something that Jackson has plenty of).

We all have to take into consideration that this is a huge offseason for us and not everybody is necessarily going to be here once February rolls around. As we all know in Blazerville, change happens.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JohnnyCash</b>!
> I hope Jackson becomes a quality NBA player... but I see him being another Casey Jacobsen or even our own Dan Dickau... not athletic enough for today's face paced, up and down NBA game.


Are you joking? "today's face paced, up and down NBA game." What NBA are you watching? Most scores are in the 80's. Aside from the Sacramento and Dallas game the other night, there are VERY few teams that actually run a lot. 

Besides, I think people are overstating his lack of athletic ability. He's no Ruben Patterson, but he can run a little bit, and his ball handling makes up for a lack of footspeed. I bet his speed WITH the ball is pretty comparable to most guys in the league. He can dunk with ease. So he wouldn't be leading many fast breaks? Big deal. Does Peja Stojakovic run the break a lot? Nope, and he's a damn good player. I'm not saying I believe Jackson will be a Peja Stojakovic, but they can have a similar style of game and still be successful. Jackson's plenty athletic for todays NBA. 

Besides, all the hops and footspeed in the world doesn't make you a basketball player. Just ask Qyntel Woods.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

SheedSoNasty- well, maybe he could play SG, but it's a role he'd have to learn to play and it it doesn't seem to be his natural position. I still think it's a wasted pick, but then again I'm not a guru when it comes to judging NBA talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Besides, all the hops and footspeed in the world doesn't make you a basketball player. Just ask Qyntel Woods.


Why the shot at Woods? He's neither supremely fast nor supremely athletic... he's a plus in both of those areas, probably, even for the NBA, but he's not Darius Miles. His strengths are getting to the basket and scoring the ball.

He's also a good enough passer and ballhandler for the Blazers' coaching staff to try him at the PG spot, where he'd never played before in his life. Would Jackson be given that opportunity? I guess it's possible, but his lack of "plus" physical tools make it less likely that he'll be that flexible.

We'll see who's the better player next year. I would bet that Woods would have been much better the past two years in college than Jackson has been, but that's just speculation.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Why the shot at Woods? He's neither supremely fast nor supremely athletic... he's a plus in both of those areas, probably, even for the NBA, but he's not Darius Miles. His strengths are getting to the basket and scoring the ball.
> 
> ...


Not neccesarily a shot at Woods specifically. Merely pointing out that being an 'athletic' player is no guarantee at success in the league. No more than being unathletic is a guarantee of failure. You say he's not supremely fast or supremely athletic. That's true in hindsight, though that was the scouting report on him coming into the draft, and athleticism is his biggest asset as a player. 

You mention that Woods was so flexible he got a shot as the back up PG. True. And he failed miserably, because he lacks the skills neccesary to play that position. Heck, he hasn't proven that he has the skill needed to play ANY position effectively in the league. 

We've gone the 'athletic' route far too often lately. I'd like us to draft a really coachable, high basketball IQ type guy. Even better if we can get both at the same time with a guy like Josh Childress.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*I agree with Ed O*

While we agree rarely, I agree with Ed O highly on this one. Jameer Nelson is not the player we are looking for at PG, and YES he is just like Damon, another player we don't need. Jameer Nelson solves none of our PG problems, and probably, creates more in the future with a blown 1st round draft pick.

Luke Jackson, while a good shooter with a lot of heart, will make it in the league, but he will not solve Portland's problems at SG at the moment. He will probably take a few years in the league to even hit his stride. There are players out there who might even be taken after him, who are probably better.

You want names? I will throw a few out there. Both of these players will probably go after Jackson and Jameer. 

1. Kirk Snyder of University of Nevada. He has the frame, and he has the skills. He played in a very underpublicized school in a very underpublicized conference, and made some big noise in the tournament. He is my second round sleeper of choice.

2. Romaine Sato. This guy has all the physical tools, can shoot, and is a defensive lockup man. If there is one part of your game that can get you into this league, it is being a defensive stopper. Augmon, Anthony, Patterson, Bowen. All these guys are in the league because of their hustle, and consistent hard nose defense. Romaine Sato is a guy who will bring that to your team.

I would rather we choose Telfair then Jameer at PG, and if I had a true choice, I would ditch both draft pickes to move up in the lotto and grab Ben Gordon at PG. When watching Ben Gordon, it reminded me of one player immediately. A healthy Terrel Brandon. He could make a big enough difference on this team right away to help a lot, and will probably be one of the Rookie of the year prospects by the end.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> We've gone the 'athletic' route far too often lately. I'd like us to draft a really coachable, high basketball IQ type guy. Even better if we can get both at the same time with a guy like Josh Childress.


I think thats a great point Fork. One of our teams biggest weaknesses is basketball IQ, NOT athletic ability. Sure you would always like to be more athletic but we have Patterson to come in for that aspect. I believe Luke Jackson would be a solid backup who would bring a different dimension to the team when he came in the game. 

I also don't see our bench being that crowded, chances are one of the players out of Miles, Patterson, and Luke will be injured throughout the year, plus patterson can play at the 4 against certain teams and Luke could backup the 2.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: I agree with Ed O*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> 
> 
> You want names? I will throw a few out there. Both of these players will probably go after Jackson and Jameer.
> ...


I might have miss understood you, but are you saying he'd make a bigger impact on the Blazers than Luke? Or just that he'd be a good pickup in the 2nd round (I quite agree with this one).


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

Some people put far too much importance on how high a guy can jump or how fast a guy can run. Neither Magic Johnson nor Larry Bird were supreme athletes by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, they dominated the league for a decade. They were simply two of the smartest, hardest working players in the game. I see a lot of that in Jackson. I'm not saying he will be as good as Larry Bird, but you can't overestimate the basketball qualities that he posesses: Basketball IQ, toughness, and perfection in the fundamentals of the game. And, for the record, he is a fine athlete as well. I'm not sure where all this slow, unathletic talk came from, but I've been watching the guy play since he was in high school, and the guy is actually a very good athlete who will compete with the best of them in the NBA.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> I'm not sure where all this slow, unathletic talk came from, but I've been watching the guy play since he was in high school, and the guy is actually a very good athlete who will compete with the best of them in the NBA.


you know, and I know the reason. It's because he's a white kid from Creswell Oregon.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> We've gone the 'athletic' route far too often lately. I'd like us to draft a really coachable, high basketball IQ type guy. Even better if we can get both at the same time with a guy like Josh Childress.


Well since there aren't any of those players in this draft that have much upside at all, it brings me to my point:

The Blazers would probably be best served to trade either or both of their draft picks. Either trade them for future picks. Or include them as required sweeteners in other trades.

This appears to be a weak draft with lots and lots of "projects" and very young players that will take years to develop.

Portland already has projects in Woods and Outlaw and plenty of studly youth with Zach and Darius (I am betting he is resigned by Portland). More long-term projects will be a bad fit on this team.

Portland already has a nearly full roster of guaranteed contracts.

The SAR trade situation may end up in Portland receiving more players back than it sends out due to his large salary. And assuming SAR is essentially swapped for a guard, Portland will need to pick up a back-up big man somehow. Free Agency or trade. The draft is not an option unless Portland wins the lottery.

My dream offseason would start by resigning Darius and trading SAR for Ray Allen straight up. That would leave the roster too full of guaranteed contracts to add two more that won't be able to get playing time next season. Those slots are needed to fill roster holes.

Now if you want to see room for the rookies, consider this option:
take the Shilly trade - SAR, DD, Woods & Dickau for Ray Allen, Booth & Potapenko we open up a slot & gain an extra bench big, which may prove just enough of a stop-gap backing up Zach and Theo to muddle though one season without signing a FA. The guaranteed roster would be (I think):

PG: Damon
SG: Ray Alen, DA
SF: Darius Miles, Patterson, Outlaw
PF: Zach, Potapenko
C: Theo, Booth, Vlad(?)

Portland either exposes Eddie Gill to the expansion draft or does not exercise his option. I am not sure about Vlad Stephania's contract. I think he has a player option.

That is only 10 guaranteed contracts (or 11 if Vlad is guaranteed or option picked up).

Looking at that roster what does the team need to round it out besides a superstar?

1) A successor to Damon
2) A quality backup PG
3) A quality backup SG, preferably a shooter.
4) A young big project

The backup PG and shooter are the most urgent, and cannot be solved with the draft. Even with the 4 for 3 SAR trade, in this scenario, I would use the #13 pick to draft the successor to Damon, trade the #23 pick for a future pick, sign Wes Person for the LLE, and try to pick up a backup PG for part of the MLE or offer all of the MLE to Gary Payton. 

PG: Payton, Damon, #13pick
SG: Ray Alen, DA, Wes Person
SF: Darius Miles, Patterson, Outlaw
PF: Zach, Potapenko
C: Theo, Booth, Vlad(?)

Wake me up when Nash has the team put together.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> And, for the record, he is a fine athlete as well. I'm not sure where all this slow, unathletic talk came from, but I've been watching the guy play since he was in high school, and the guy is actually a very good athlete who will compete with the best of them in the NBA.


There's no doubt (to me) that he's a very good athlete. Precious few men make it as NBA players without being very good athletes.

But is he a good athlete for the NBA? Almost certainly not. He lacks quickness and he doesn't have length or size that allows him to make up for it.

I didn't watch him play as much as some in this forum when he was in college, and I never saw him in high school, but from what I've seen and read he wasn't a good athlete for even the PAC-10 and there's a huge step up to the NBA. Maybe Luke can make that step up, either because he's more athletic than scouts and many fans give him credit for or because he simply does so many other things well. I have serious doubts.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> I'm not sure where all this slow, unathletic talk came from, but I've been watching the guy play since he was in high school, and the guy is actually a very good athlete who will compete with the best of them in the NBA.


When you say he will compete with the best of them in the NBA, what exactly are you saying? That he'll be one of the best athletes in the league, or that he'll be be ok against them, or what exactly? 

IMO compared to NBA wing players, athletically he's nothing special... average at best. I think he has a chance to be a pretty good offensive player, as he has the ability to pass, create shots off the dribble, and he has a great stroke... but because of his relative lack of quickness (IMO again) he's probably going to have a tough time staying in front of many of the truely explosive athletes he'll be matched up against. 

As a big proponent of putting together a team where everyone can defend, I sure don't want Luke with the top pick, maybe the #23. BTW, I'm an Oregon grad.

STOMP


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

by the way Masbee... good post!



> _
> PG: Payton, Damon, #13pick
> SG: Ray Allen, DA, Wes Person
> SF: Darius Miles, Patterson, Outlaw
> ...



I could enjoy that team, much better shooters, good floor general.... but adding Payton and Wes make it an older team

a lot of Sonics on that team


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Masbee - 

I 100% disagree with

a) That this is a weak draft

It is actaully more closer to the REVERSE IMO, the caveat being that there aren't any IMMEDIATE contributors. But long term (3-4 years from now) there will be as many GOOD and GREAT\FRANCHISE players as a typical draft or MORE. Actually the fact that so many teams are looking for IMMEDIATE impact players(ORL & CHI being two) could actually benefit POR via a trade and make the usual unobtainable picks (like Top 5) now obtainable.

If your scouting staff and mgmt is any good at their job (and ours most definitely is), there is a franchise player up there for the taking, problem is you will have to 1) assume some risk 2) WAIT for him to develop. I dont't see a problem with this. Our (arguably) two best players (Zach and Miles) are 22yrs old. We have some time to put players\pieces around them. Do you really think POR is going to unseat the Spurs or Lakers? Not to mention Dallas, Minnesota or Sacramento.

b) That POR would be better served trading away its picks

Unless it is for part of a package to acquire a "Franchise" type talent, an already young player (ie Chandler) with potential like Miles, or to move up in the draff, I don't agree. And that "franchise" player better be able to make POR a TITLE contender right away, or be young enough (McGrady...Redd?) to grow alongside Zach and Miles, otherwise it is nothing but a mere stopgap. If we Obtain a good player, yeah we will make the playoffs, but actually DO anything in them (ie make a championship game ...let alone win a title?) not a chance.

c) That your moves make POR a TITLE contender

PG: Payton, Damon, #13pick
SG: Ray Alen, DA, Wes Person
SF: Darius Miles, Patterson, Outlaw
PF: Zach, Potapenko
C: Theo, Booth, Vlad(?)

Where is this team headed? b\c it sure as heck isn't leading us to an NBA title. Oh yeah maybe a 5th seed, maybe even a 4th...big deal, ask Dallas or Sacramento how HOLLOW that is..ONLY NBA TITLES MATTER, and you either are building for one or just happy to be competitve :uhoh: Which would YOU prefer? That team you listed is not building for an NBA title, it is merely playoff fodder. 1st or 2nd (oh joy!) and out.

As for the players..

Payton? He is slipping badly, better than Damon yeah, but a shell of his former self, how much you paying him? (part of an MLE...yeah right) how long is his contract? I bet he wants 3-4 more years at as much money as you can give him, and newsflash...he isn't worth it...makes POR better for a year or two...after that he is dead weight.

Ray Allen? I love Ray Allen, but first I don't think we could even GET him, but even if we could, he is not the "missing piece" IMO. Does he make us better? Most certainly he does. NBA title better? a 100% NO. Plus you have to acknowledge all the "other" factors that go into acquiring Ray. His contract...is up in what? 1year? and he wants MAX money, and a long term commitment, and he isn't getting any younger....Think Allen Housten...look how his contract is strangling the Knicks, and now injuries are creeping in...Not a pretty situation. Plus you have to factor in a MAX deal to ZACH, you are going to pay him what he is due aren't you? and Miles, who wants long term stability as wel.l Where does that leave POR capwise? Not in a good situation...and STILL not a "title" contender. I'd love to watch Ray though, but he isn't the answer if POR wants to win an NBA title IMO.

All you did here was replace DAL or at best SAC, good enough to be considered a contender by some, but not good enough to ACTUALLY WIN ONE.

Go young, build around Zach and MIles...identify and get your "franchise" player in the draft, b\c thru trade is not easy and FA is practically impossible. Risky? Hell yes!...But you have to believe (and I think our scouts and mgmt already do) that YOU are better at identifying players than your competitiors. That IF you had a top 3 or top 5 pick you WOULD select the correct "franchise" player, b\c he is there. The bottom line is no guts, no glory....

Build a team that is ready to hit its prime when the Lakers, Spurs, Kings and Mavs are beginning their decline...I don't see any other way.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> When you say he will compete with the best of them in the NBA, what exactly are you saying? That he'll be one of the best athletes in the league, or that he'll be be ok against them, or what exactly?


I just meant that when he gets out on the floor in an NBA uniform, he will be able to compete and hold his own against the competition. He has both the physical tools and mental capability to do that. Sure, he might get lit up certain nights facing a Tracy McGrady or sombody, but who doesn't. I'm not saying he will be all-NBA or anything, only time will tell on that, but he will be able to compete well against his opponents, whoever it may be.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Masbee</b>!
> 
> 
> PG: Payton, Damon, #13pick
> ...


I like everything except Payton. If you don't like a point guard who shoot a lot then, believe me, Payton is not your man. Its no accident that he's never won a championship and, in fact, he's only been on one really good team in his career. And that was just because he had Schrempf, Kemp, and Hawkins on his team in their prime. And even this year the amazing "all-star" Laker squad has Derek Fisher getting as many minutes as him, and they won't get out of the second round.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I think was prasutagus is getting at is that athleticism isn't the only key to who becomes a good NBA player, and I agree totally. Bird, Porter, Magic, Mullen, Schremph, R. Miller were not super athletic. We have three super young athletic players already in Woods, Miles and Outlaw. Perhaps a few players who can shoot and have good decision making skills is exactly what we need.

Also, here is a guy who came out and flat out said he'd like to play here. You know he will play his heart out. Would I take him with 13? Maybe not...but with that second pick... in a HEART BEAT. I see him going a bit before our 2nd pick though. Tough one.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Bottom line. What is one of this teams major major major weak points?

outside shooting.

Luke Jackson can provide that. He also can actually drive to the hoop with deceptive power, and can rebound and assist. He's a good ball-handler, and has a good basketball mind. 

He's not a 1 dimensional type of player. 

A shooting guard who can shoot, imho, is by far the most important thing this team needs. We can survive Damon as PG, as long as we have a strong shooting SG. 

Why? Because chances are, the PG we'd draft (or who we already have) isn't going to be a strong shooter. Most PG's aren't. 

What PG is a good shooter right off the bat?

Getting shooters should be their #1 priority (Barry, Jackson, maybe Person). Getting a C should be their 2nd.


----------



## RG (Jan 1, 2003)

Bring in a good shooting SG and mark my word...he will rarely see the ball.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RG</b>!
> Bring in a good shooting SG and mark my word...he will rarely see the ball.


I can guess your _train of thought_ here (woo wooooo  ), but only one more half to full season left to endure. 

There are a number of wing sized players in this draft who come with the advertised skills to run some point... Iguadala, Childress, and Livingston from the lotto and a few projects below. Having passers/playmakers at multiple positions (Darius can create a little too) helps diversify the attack, and lessens the dependance on one guy setting things up every time down the court. The Kings offense flows so nicely because of this, often freeing up Bibby to play off the ball, run off screens and catch and shoot. I like the potencial of both the Pac-10 guys fitting in at the 2 in Portland, and Livingston is supposively even better (though probably not next season). This draft has options, and Nash probably has the means to trade up for the guy he targets. 

Can't wait till draft day.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Paxil</b>!
> I think was prasutagus is getting at is that athleticism isn't the only key to who becomes a good NBA player, and I agree totally. Bird, Porter, Magic, Mullen, Schremph, R. Miller were not super athletic. We have three super young athletic players already in Woods, Miles and Outlaw.


I sure don't see Q as super athletic, more like a decent athlete for the 2/3. I recall him having the same listed jump reach (32") from the pre-draft as Mike Dunleavy Jr who I also wouldn't site as a better then average athlete compared to his competition. That 2/3 wing spot has some of the great flyers in the game. Darius was one before he blew out his knees, and he remains above average... Outlaw is a good example of a top shelf wing athlete IMO. 

Of the guys you listed, only Reggie played the ultra-athletic 2 guard spot where Luke projects for the Blazers. He battled on D, but his man often has had his way. Mullin is someone I compared Luke to a few threads back. Though he has an outside shot of going to the HOF because of his scoring, I felt that the much less lauded Kersey used to regularly get the better of him when Portland played the W's and was a big part of why the Blazers so often came out on top. If a team has good athletes with size throughout their lineup, usually they are able to get to more loose balls, grab more rebounds, and collect easy fast break buckets. 

Since it seems that Portland is building it's future around Zach (who I feel is average athletically and a sub par defender) I'd rather see the young pieces Nash adds help to cover his deficiencies to make this puzzle fit. Luke's probably going to be in someone's rotation for 5-10 years, but I'm hoping that there are better prospects for Portland to select from if they choose to retain their second #1. Roko-Leni Ukic, Sasha Vujacic, Predrag Samardziski, Robert Swift, and a long list of others I haven't seen might be that guy. 

STOMP


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I think Luke Jackson can be a very good NBA player. I've seen a lot of his college games and he reminds me more of Dan Majerle than anybody else. I actually think that there can be a role on this squad for him. 

Trade SAR For Ray Allen. Trade DA for anything. 

Jackson backs up Allen at SG, Patterson backs up Miles at SF. Jackson and Patterson switch defensive assignments as matchups dictate. Let him play the 2 on offense and the 3 on defense.

Patterson already swaps defensively with the 2 when we go against elite SGs. 

The role is out there for Jackson. If not on the Blazers then certainly on another team. He wouldn't be projected as a non-lottery first round pick if he weren't a player with potential.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Ben Gordon*



> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> Bottom line. What is one of this teams major major major weak points?
> 
> outside shooting.
> ...


Ben Gordon would be better then what we have immediately in both aspects. We cannot "survive" with Damon at PG, and chances are, with him at PG again next year we will miss the playoffs again. It takes quite a team to make up for tha ballhogging, volume shooting, goat who couldn't play defence if his life depended on it. He does so many things to screw up a team it astounds me that you even continue to support him.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> This draft has options, and Nash probably has the means to trade up for the guy he targets.


I sure hope you are right Stomp...I would love to see POR trade up and acquire whatever player (be it Livingston, Howard, Gordon, Harris, ???) they have targeted. 


POR needs to use their available "chips" (SAR, Dale and Damon's expring contracts) to acquire young talent to fill out the "puzzle" pieces around our 22yr old forward tandem of Zach & Miles. Hopefully Outlaw and _maybe_ Qyntel (if he is still here) can begin to contribute in the next few years as well. 

Building young talent, while keeping a few veterans around to keep us competitive is definitely the way to go.

It ain't gonna happen, but acquiring Ray Allen would end up being a mistake IMO. Fun to watch for a few years though....


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

So what are Jackson's weaknesses? I have to admit that I've never seen him play....

Because if he really had all the characteristics that I'm reading on this thread (good leader, great outside shooter, can penetrate, good ball-handler, good defender, good rebounder, great basketball IQ, etc.), he'd be a sure-fire top 5 pick. But nobody seems to think he is.

So, I'm just wondering what the truth is.....


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> So what are Jackson's weaknesses? I have to admit that I've never seen him play....
> 
> Because if he really had all the characteristics that I'm reading on this thread (good leader, great outside shooter, can penetrate, good ball-handler, good defender, good rebounder, great basketball IQ, etc.), he'd be a sure-fire top 5 pick. But nobody seems to think he is.
> ...


Look at the words you're using - more often than not, the word is "good" and that's what I'd say about Luke - he's good. I'd even say, he was a great player in the Pac 10, but look at that conference this year - it's best teams (Arizona and Stanford) got nowhere in the tournament. Jackson was able to lead U of O pretty deep in the NIT, but just because he's a standout against Division I teams that can't make the NCAA's doesn't mean he'll contribute as an NBA star. 

Jackson has several problems when you try to translate his game into the NBA:

1.) He's not strong enough to play against the tough small forwards, nor is he tall enough against the really tall ones. Add to that the fact that he's not quick enough to keep up with shooting guards, and Jackson is left as a man without a position. 

2.) His consistency is questionable. Maybe it's just because the rest of the team was terribly inconsistent, but defenses found ways of taking Luke Jackson out of games. Sure, there were the anomalies where he went off for 35, but he couldn't turn that on every time. 

3.) He's not really that good a defender. He's got quick hands, good instincts and is a good shot-blocker for his size, but quicker, stronger, and more athletic players found they could score against Jackson when they wanted to. The criticism of Luke Ridnour as a poor defender doesn't extend to Jackson, but he's still got a ways to go.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

*comparisons*

I've not seen Luke Jackson play, so it would help me if someone could compare him with the following current and former NBA players in at least these areas
(a) athleticism
(b) defense
(c) passing ability
(d) shooting ability:

Brent Barry
other Barry (plays for Nuggets - I'm having a "senior moment")
Wesley Person
Mario Elie
Rip Hamilton
Luke Walton


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>:
> 
> That 2/3 wing spot has some of the great flyers in the game. Darius was one before he blew out his knees, and he remains above average.


Huh? When did Miles blow out his knees?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>So Cal Blazer Fan</b>!
> So what are Jackson's weaknesses? I have to admit that I've never seen him play....
> 
> Because if he really had all the characteristics that I'm reading on this thread (good leader, great outside shooter, can penetrate, good ball-handler, good defender, good rebounder, great basketball IQ, etc.), he'd be a sure-fire top 5 pick. But nobody seems to think he is.
> ...


thats faulty reasoning. Why would that make him a "sure fire top 5 pick"?

First of, how many "sure fire top 5 picks" have that to begin with? When did that become the criteria for ear-marking a top 5 pick?

A lot of players are "sure fire" top 5 picks, without having any real legit reason to be. Like Pavel last year. 

No one is saying that he's a "great player" or that he's going to lead us to the promised land. No he's not a defensive juggernaught, who can someone name me a guy after 4 years of college ball..who IS?

Or better yet, anyone in the draft?

Seriously? Why is it that some things that are said about certain players (not fast enough, not tall enough, not strong enough, has no position) is not said about other players who have the same exact "weaknesses"?

couldn't be due to the fact he's a small town white kid from Creswell, now could it?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> thats faulty reasoning. Why would that make him a "sure fire top 5 pick"?


Because people are making him sound 8 feet tall and bulletproof. Oh, and athletic.



> A lot of players are "sure fire" top 5 picks, without having any real legit reason to be. Like Pavel last year.


Pavel was considered to be 7'5" and had one of the greatest pre-draft workouts ever. At 18 years of age, he was considered a probable top 5 pick, and I think there were plenty of reasons to consider him as such.



> Or better yet, anyone in the draft?


Okafor. Andre Iguodala. There are several defensive standouts coming out this year.



> Seriously? Why is it that some things that are said about certain players (not fast enough, not tall enough, not strong enough, has no position) is not said about other players who have the same exact "weaknesses"?


Which players are you talking about? I haven't seen any players on this board that people haven't been poking holes in them at some level or another. Okafor's even caught some flak from people here (justifiably, IMO) which shows a sure-fire top 5 player isn't above that.

Jackson, as a borderline first round pick, simply has more flaws in his game and he also has more defenders on this board.



> couldn't be due to the fact he's a small town white kid from Creswell, now could it?


Maybe, but if he wasn't both of those things I doubt he'd be talked about on this board as much for better or for worse. Fred Jones didn't get this much hype on the boards I was on at the time and neither did Ridnour... in spite of each of them being better NBA prospects.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Because people are making him sound 8 feet tall and bulletproof. Oh, and athletic.


is that any worse than the people who are basically saying (without seeing him ever play) that he's too short, not strong enough, too slow, and not worth squat?


> Pavel was considered to be 7'5" and had one of the greatest pre-draft workouts ever. At 18 years of age, he was considered a probable top 5 pick, and I think there were plenty of reasons to consider him as such.


which is why he's considered a top 5 pick this year, right?


> Okafor. Andre Iguodala. There are several defensive standouts coming out this year.


Let me change the question. Who is a defensive player who's 1: available at our pick and 2: actually can shoot


> Jackson, as a borderline first round pick, simply has more flaws in his game and he also has more defenders on this board.


he has no more flaws in his game than anyone else mentioned (who the blazers have a realistic chance of picking). He's constantly said to be slow (he's not) unathletic (he's not) and too small to play positions (it's not like he's 6'3" or something). 



> Maybe, but if he wasn't both of those things I doubt he'd be talked about on this board as much for better or for worse. Fred Jones didn't get this much hype on the boards I was on at the time and neither did Ridnour... in spite of each of them being better NBA prospects.


Fred can dunk and leap. Infact, Fred is a great dunker, and we all know that a lot of people consider that to be proof someone is a great "prospect". Thats part of the reason he's such a "better prospect"?

Ridnour was flashy, thats why he's a better prospect?

Luke did something that Ridnour and Jones can't do. Shoot very well. Rebound very well. 

Fred had basically 1 strong season at UO (thats one of the complaints about Fred too. He was a dissapointment for 3 years at UO), and that makes him a better prospect?

I wouldn't say that either one of them is a "better" prospect necessarily. Fred is a short streaky shooting guard trapped in a PG's body.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>meru</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? When did Miles blow out his knees?


I know he's had them both scoped at least. According to both his own quotes and my eyes, he doesn't elevate like he did. He's still better then most though...

btw the other Barry you weren't recalling was John.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> is that any worse than the people who are basically saying (without seeing him ever play) that he's too short, not strong enough, too slow, and not worth squat?


I don't see that. I see people who are criticizing him also giving him his due, but I see some people defending him while not acknowledging why he might not be a good pick.

Obviously, not everyone on each side is saying the same thing, so if you don't think my comment applies to you, you're probably right 



> which is why he's considered a top 5 pick this year, right?


There's still a good chance that he's a top 5 pick, but he's got that pituitary condition, which is a huge deal, and he's got a broken hand.



> Let me change the question. Who is a defensive player who's 1: available at our pick and 2: actually can shoot


We don't know who's available at our position, honestly. The one reason that Luke's a safe discussion topic is because he'll clearly be there at 13, and probably at 23, also.



> he has no more flaws in his game than anyone else mentioned (who the blazers have a realistic chance of picking). He's constantly said to be slow (he's not) unathletic (he's not) and too small to play positions (it's not like he's 6'3" or something).


I would say that he IS slow and he IS unathletic for an NBA 2 guard. I simply don't see how people can disagree with that. That doesn't mean he can't overcome those disadvantages, but by saying he's fine athletically and defensively and speed-wise makes it sound like he's a top 5 pick again. And he's clearly not.



> Fred can dunk and leap. Infact, Fred is a great dunker, and we all know that a lot of people consider that to be proof someone is a great "prospect". Thats part of the reason he's such a "better prospect"?


He was the 14th pick. I'd be shocked if Jackson is. Add in his athletic ability and in spite of his lack of size I'd say he was a better pro prospect than Jackson.



> Ridnour was flashy, thats why he's a better prospect?


He's a PG, and more athletically gifted than Jackson, and he, too, was a low lottery-ish pick. And again, I don't see Luke Jackson there.

So it's possible you think Jackson's a better prospect than Rid and Jones and that he'll go higher than either or both of them. I don't see it.

Neither do the mock drafts that I have some respect for. And neither will, I bet, the NBA GMs.

Ed O.


----------



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

> Originally posted by Hap
> Luke did something that Ridnour and Jones can't do. Shoot very well. Rebound very well.


Ok, I can here you saying that Fred didn't shoot to well, but saying Ridnour didn't shoot well? Um, ok...
I think that Luke Jackson and Luke Ridnour were pretty much in the same class in terms of shooting. I would most deffiately take LJ with our second first round pick, and I'm a Beaver! I respected Luke Ridnour and Luke Jackson a lot, and when the Beavers beat the Ducks this year, but Luke scored like 38 points, or something like that, I thought, "This guy can shoot, wants to win, hustles, is smart." If he would have anything resembling a team around him, they would have made the sweet sixteen. I don't think Jamier is the answer, I hope that we get maybe like the 8th pick or something, and we are able to draft Ben Gordon. I can see him falling to 8th. Trade SAR, DA and crap for Allen and crap to make the salaries work. Our lineup would then be:

PG-Damon, Gordon
SG-Allen, Jackson
SF-Miles(asuming we resign him, and we damn well better) Patterson
PF-ZBO, Help?
C-Ratliff, DD, Help?

I look at that lineup, and that would be a championship contending lineup if you ask me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> So it's possible you think Jackson's a better prospect than Rid and Jones and that he'll go higher than either or both of them. I don't see it.
> 
> ...


being a good prospect and going higher doesn't mean the same thing. Fred Jones was taken way to high. Ridnour I think was taken too high, but the Sonics couldn't pass him up.

Should Jackson go 13 (or whatever our lotto pick is)? god no. but at 23? It'd be a wise pick.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheoSaysNo</b>!
> Ok, I can here you saying that Fred didn't shoot to well, but saying Ridnour didn't shoot well? Um, ok...


um...43% is not shooting well. If that is considered shooting well, thats a sad state of affairs.



> I think that Luke Jackson and Luke Ridnour were pretty much in the same class in terms of shooting. I would most deffiately take LJ with our second first round pick, and I'm a Beaver!


I'm a beaver (fan), so it's not like I'm blinded by my love for UO. Infact, some would say the opposite, I'm blinded by my hatred. But facts are facts. Luke Ridnour didn't shoot as well as Luke Jackson. Luke almost shot 45% from 3's alone last year. Thats a marketable improvement from the previous year. 

And if you take into consideration he was the "main cog" of an offense, and in some cases, players shooting %'s drop when that becomes the case, as Ridnours did.

You know, they have to shoot more to score more. In Luke Jackson's case, he shot more, and improved his shooting % (especially in 3's). 



> I respected Luke Ridnour and Luke Jackson a lot, and when the Beavers beat the Ducks this year, but Luke scored like 38 points, or something like that, I thought, "This guy can shoot, wants to win, hustles, is smart." If he would have anything resembling a team around him, they would have made the sweet sixteen. I don't think Jamier is the answer, I hope that we get maybe like the 8th pick or something, and we are able to draft Ben Gordon. I can see him falling to 8th. Trade SAR, DA and crap for Allen and crap to make the salaries work. Our lineup would then be:


I thought that basically, the only picks Portland has a shot at getting are the 1-3 or 13 or 14. As I understood it, there is no chance in getting between 5-12.


> PG-Damon, Gordon
> SG-Allen, Jackson
> SF-Miles(asuming we resign him, and we damn well better) Patterson
> PF-ZBO, Help?
> ...


I think it'd be a better team, but not championship contending this upcoming season.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Because people are making him sound 8 feet tall and bulletproof. Oh, and athletic.
> ...


He's bulletproof too? WOW!  

I have heard that he might be the best player coming out of Oregon in a while. Even better than Fred Jones and that other Luke guy.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Least we not forget.... with Jackson in Portland, the calls of 'LUUUUKE.... LUUUUUUUKE' would once again fill Blazerland. That has to be worth something.


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

In the posts that I've read nobody has ever mentioned Jackson being a top 5 pick or being able to jump to the moon. The question has been whether he can be a good NBA player and would be a wise pick for the Blazers in the draft at 13 or 23. Some people said no he wouldn't for various reasons, and others said yes and countered those reasons (including myself). I did not see anyone claim that Jackson should go higher than mid first round. Somebody that never even saw the guy play started this whole business about people making him out to be a b-ball god, and from my perspective that just didn't happen.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> In the posts that I've read nobody has ever mentioned Jackson being a top 5 pick or being able to jump to the moon. The question has been whether he can be a good NBA player and would be a wise pick for the Blazers in the draft at 13 or 23. Some people said no he wouldn't for various reasons, and others said yes and countered those reasons (including myself). I did not see anyone claim that Jackson should go higher than mid first round. Somebody that never even saw the guy play started this whole business about people making him out to be a b-ball god, and from my perspective that just didn't happen.


couldn't have said it better myself...

well, I probably could have, but it would've been 5 times longer, and I would've spent 4 hours on it.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

I've watched him play for years and he reminds me of Charlie Sitton, an ex-OSu player that was somewhat of a bust in the NBA. Their games are remarkable similar. 

Can a fairly nonathletic college player make it as a SF in the NBA? No. At best all he could become is a decent reserve player. However, with Patterson still on the roster and if we resign Miles, Jackson will only see true garbage time- if even that. That'd be some thrill to see him play the last 40 seconds of blowouts only for 2-3 years. Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuke, we'd all yell.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Bottom line is he isn't worth taking #13, and might be gone by #23.

Which means unless POR reaches for him at #13 (and selecting him there WOULD be a reach IMO), there is a decent chance he would not be there at #23.

I like Luke, and I think he could be a solid pro, but given all of POR "other" needs (PG, SG, C), I am not sure he is the best fit here. And drafting him for "PR" reasons would be one of the DUMBEST things POR could do. 

I see a lot of posts talking about how he could play SG, and I think that is just crazy. He is a SF, and with Darius the long term starter, Ruben here for another 3 years and Travis Outlaw projecting out there, I just don't see the fit. 

I am sure Luke will be under condsideration (if he is available then) when POR picks at #23. He has a lot of good qualities IMO (IQ, shooting, passing, hustle), but my bet is there will be a more intriguing player there for POR to take.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Kmurph, I agree. Luke is no way a #13 and even if he is a decent pick late in the first round, he's not a good pick for us. I'm pretty confidant we won't take him and he could slide a ways into the second round if his workouts aren't spectacular.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> Somebody that never even saw the guy play started this whole business about people making him out to be a b-ball god, and from my perspective that just didn't happen.


Didn't you favorably compare him to Bball gods Larry Bird and Magic Johnson? You've stated Luke has...



> Basketball IQ, toughness, and perfection in the fundamentals of the game. And, for the record, he is a fine athlete as well.


You've claimed...



> he *might* get lit up certain nights facing a Tracy McGrady or sombody


McGrady *might* light him up??? I don't think he'll fare well against backup wings like Desmond Mason, Ronald Murry, Mickael Pietrus, Ginobli, Jamison, ect... I see a role player to be inserted when the matchups are favorable. IMO he's going to need some quality shotblockers backing him up for things to work.

Like Ed brought up elsewhere, for a number of reasons I'd guess that Nash deals one or both picks, so the points made in this thread are likely going to be moot. Nonetheless, I hope that Luke does well no matter where he ends up.

STOMP


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'd guess that Nash deals one or both picks, so the points made in this thread are likely going to be moot



I hope it is to move up then. I don't see any other "realistic" trade scenario turning POR into a title contender overnight. 

But boy! we'd be in the playoffs again :uhoh: Like it did DEN, HOU, MEM any good. Yeah they made the playoffs alright, only to bounced out in the first round. At least HOU and DEN have a young "franchise" player to build around, unlike POR IMO.

This a good draft, not a weak one, no "immediate" significant contributors (ala LeBron, Carmelo, or even Wade), but several who could be as good or better than Carmelo and Wade, given a few years. I sure hope POR doesn't throw away their picks for a chance to get back in the playoffs (and subsequently bounced out of them) for the next few years. 

The answer for POR is long term planning, not short term "filling" needs or satisfying " playoff Jones' "


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

I think you need to read my post more carefully before you twist my words. Here is is:



> Originally posted by <b>prasutagus</b>!
> Some people put far too much importance on how high a guy can jump or how fast a guy can run. Neither Magic Johnson nor Larry Bird were supreme athletes by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, they dominated the league for a decade. They were simply two of the smartest, hardest working players in the game. I see a lot of that in Jackson. I'm not saying he will be as good as Larry Bird, but you can't overestimate the basketball qualities that he posesses: Basketball IQ, toughness, and perfection in the fundamentals of the game. And, for the record, he is a fine athlete as well. I'm not sure where all this slow, unathletic talk came from, but I've been watching the guy play since he was in high school, and the guy is actually a very good athlete who will compete with the best of them in the NBA.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

prasutagus- I read your page 3 post several times initially, rolled my eyes and let it pass... and then was pretty flabergasted when you later claimed no one was comparing Luke to Bball gods. 

How exactly am I twisting your words? As I'm reading it, you boiled Bird and Magic's games down to what you felt made them successful dispite their physical limitations, and then claimed Luke had a whole lot of the same qualities. How is that not comparing him favorably to them? According to what I'm reading, not only does he possess "_a lot of the qualities_" of the aforementioned Bball gods, but he's "_a fine athlete as well_." 

Its not surprising IMO that some of those who are chiming in and haven't seen him play are confused over just how good he might be...

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> I hope it is to move up then. I don't see any other "realistic" trade scenario turning POR into a title contender overnight.


Could be, I am sure that Nash is privy to lots of scenarios and considerations that we'll never be in the loop for. I guess the main reason I see him dealing a pick is that with Dickau, Zach, Darius, Q, and Outlaw, the team is already very young overall. Packaging the picks to move up higher in the lotto, or including one in alleviating the Zach/SAR duplication or sweetening another deal (Damon :gopray: ) makes sense in the grand scheme of things according to me... but what do I know? I'm just a Bball speculation junkie  

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> prasutagus- I read your page 3 post several times initially, rolled my eyes and let it pass... and then was pretty flabergasted when you later claimed no one was comparing Luke to Bball gods.
> 
> How exactly am I twisting your words? As I'm reading it, you boiled Bird and Magic's games down to what you felt made them successful dispite their physical limitations, and then claimed Luke had a whole lot of the same qualities. How is that not comparing him favorably to them? According to what I'm reading, not only does he possess "_a lot of the qualities_" of the aforementioned Bball gods, but he's "_a fine athlete as well_."
> ...


eesh...it's not saying that he'll be like them, it's saying that LIKE them, he isnt super athletic, or super fast, and they (like him) were good basketball players inspite of that. He too can be a good player, despite the lack of (supposed) speed or lack of athleticism.

It's a stretch to suggest that pras was comparing him to Magic and Bird saying he'd be like them.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> It's a stretch to suggest that pras was comparing him to Magic and Bird saying he'd be like them.


then he should have said, has _some_, or _a few of_ the qualities of the Bball gods he compared Luke to. He wasn't comparing them in lack of athletic ability as you're contending, he claimed that his mindset and skills were similar but that on top of that, he was a fine athlete.

Obviously it wasn't clear to all Hap. Since I have seen him, I was sure he couldn't mean what I was reading.

STOMP


----------



## prasutagus (Jan 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> 
> 
> eesh...it's not saying that he'll be like them, it's saying that LIKE them, he isnt super athletic, or super fast, and they (like him) were good basketball players inspite of that. He too can be a good player, despite the lack of (supposed) speed or lack of athleticism.
> ...


Thank you for understanding Hap. I apologize if my post was somehow confusing.


----------

