# Draft Roy, Trade Telfair?



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I don't like Roy at the SG with Webster at the SF. But, maybe that is the wrong way to think about it.

Nash, Telfair's biggest supporter, is gone. Obviously Nash's drafting of Telfair didn't mean enough to the Blazers to keep him.

Nate has stated that he thinks Webster is a SG who can play limited minutes at the SF. Nate also likes Roy. It is not clear to me if Nate likes Telfair. So, could it be that Nate sees Roy at the point and Webster at the two? Roy could be looked at as a Jack-like player, but with better skills.

What about drafting Roy at 4, trading Telfair [and/or Miles/Outlaw/30/31] for a starting SF (R. Jefferson?) or mid-early first round pick? [Shelden Williams, O'Bryant]

PG: Roy, Jack, Blake
SG: Webster, Roy
SF: Khryapa, Outlaw, Webster
PF: Zach, Skinner [Williams/O'Bryant]
C: Theo, [Joel], [Williams/O'Bryant]

A long term back court of Roy and Webster, with Jack relieving either one, could be outstanding. It would be tall, could shoot, can finish at the rim.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Even if you don't like the idea of trading Telfair, what do you think about Roy at the point? Check out McMillan's numbers as the point for Seattle. Roy could be a very similar player, with more scoring potential.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Sure if you could trade Telfair and the two later picks for a player of Richard Jefferson's caliber I would definetly do it. Don't think you could though.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I have doubts about Roy as a point. If we get Roy, I want Telfair to be our scoring PG with Roy playing SG and being the primary playmaker. Kinda like Barbosa and Diaw.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

how about we draft a better *player* at #4 than Roy, and KEEP telfair and jack and wait till one actually, god forbid, proves he's worth keeping over the other?


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If the blazers really like the idea of getting Roy and playing him at the point (as I've heard periodically from a number of unreliable sources) I think we'd be better off trying to trade Telfair to a team with a high pick that wants a point guard rather than using our #4 on him. Maybe Atlanta at #5 or Boston at #7.

I'd also start Jack and bring Roy off the bench. My depth chart would be...

PG: Jack, Roy, Blake
SG: Webster, Roy, Dixon
SF: Morrison, Khryapa, Miles 
PF: Zach, Outlaw
C: Theo, Skinner

Nothing special but probably good enough to not be the worst team in the league again. And next year maybe we get lucky and snag Oden. Or even if we're unlucky we should be able to draft Noah.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I simply can't wait until Roy plays PG against Telfair, Paul, Nash, Parker, etc. He'll get humiliated. Hell most "quick" PG's can't stay with Telfair much less a SG with average quickness.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

If we could get #5 or #7 for Jack or Telfiar, we do it. Adam and Roy could immediatley contribute at least 20ppg combined.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> how about we draft a better *player* at #4 than Roy, and KEEP telfair and jack and wait till one actually, god forbid, proves he's worth keeping over the other?


My main point here is to try and understand what Nate is thinking by loving on Roy. Nate knows what Jack and Telfair are capable of and, being a player for a few years, knows what skills other point guards in the league have. So, maybe Nate doesn't think either is what he would like at the starting spot. 



ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I have doubts about Roy as a point.


Telfair averaged 3.6 asst, 1.7 t.o., and 1 stl last year
Roy averaged 4.1 asst, 2.3 t.o. and 1.4 stl last year. Roy did play seven more minutes than Telfair, but I think you can see that the numbers are comperable. Telfair is not exactly the assist king. Oh yeah, and Telfair shot 40% from the field while Roy shot 51%.

I'm not proposing that we should take Roy. I would rather see Ammo, Gay or Aldridge [not sure about Bargnani]. However, if Roy is the pick, then there might be some thought of having him play the point. You have to admit that a Roy/Webster backcourt would be interesting.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

You do realize that Roy is regarded as not an overly quick defender don't you?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I simply can't wait until Roy plays PG against Telfair, Paul, Nash, Parker, etc. He'll get humiliated. Hell most "quick" PG's can't stay with Telfair much less a SG with average quickness.


If Telfair is so fast, then why is he averaging only 9.5 pts on 40% shooting. And I don't recall seeing Telfair shut down Nash, Parker or Paul either.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> You do realize that Roy is regarded as not an overly quick defender don't you?


Again, Roy is not my preference. I'm just trying to rationalize the Blazer's interest. However, I do think Roy is a better defender at the point that Telfair. 

From draftexpress:


> On defense, we see this same versatility. Roy has guarded four positions very effectively throughout his career, and is *just as comfortable checking a point guard * as he is a wing. His most notable defensive exploit this season was probably locking up UCLA PG Jordan Farmar, forcing the sophomore into one of his worst games of the season (2-13 shooting, 7 TO’s).


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> how about we draft a better *player* at #4 than Roy, and KEEP telfair and jack and wait till one actually, god forbid, proves he's worth keeping over the other?


My God... I agree with you so friggin' much.

Let's just stick with our young backcourt core of Jack, Telfair and Webster and draft the best available talent with the #4 and see what happens. Ideally, we'd pick Morrison, stick with Telfair and Jack for the next decade, let Webster assume a Clyde Drexler sort of role, dump Miles, Zach returns to his 20 and 10 form and the Blazers win no less than 50 games over the next 8 years...



Ideally.


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

I'd rather get a decent backup SG or decent bigman for Telfair + #30. Then- Draft Gay/Morrison for SF.
Great Idea though- trading Telfair. 
Even though losing the king of Koney-Island is pretty tough- I'm starting to think that Jack would be awesome starting for us- And Blake would be ideal for a backup PG- which has a great AST/TRN ratio.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

no no no


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

We have alot in telfair so im thinking we keep him and draft ammo.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Where's the logic?

Draft a guy who MIGHT be able to play point guard in the NBA when we have 3 guys who definitely CAN play point guard?

Why not just draft the most talented player and see what happens?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> I don't like Roy at the SG with Webster at the SF. But, maybe that is the wrong way to think about it.
> 
> Nash, Telfair's biggest supporter, is gone. Obviously Nash's drafting of Telfair didn't mean enough to the Blazers to keep him.
> 
> ...


Not a fan of the idea. We reach by taking Roy at #4, who will not be the most talented player at that spot, and then we compound it by trading away a more talented player, in my opinion.

Gay/Bargnani/Aldridge/Morrison (whichever falls to #4) + Telfair seems very preferable to Roy + whatever we can get for Telfair while his value is likely the lowest it'll be in his career

Telfair was better than Livingston last season, and is just about to reach the years that prep-to-pro players break out. This would be a flatly awful time to deal him. We get value for his weakest two years and trade away his likely much more valuable future.

This just seems like a mistake compounding a mistake. If we _do_ reach and take Roy, I'd just play him on the perimeter with Telfair and Webster and work on upgrading the front court.

But, I'd rather select Bargnani/Gay/Aldridge/Morrison.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Telfair averaged 3.6 asst, 1.7 t.o., and 1 stl last year
> Roy averaged 4.1 asst, 2.3 t.o. and 1.4 stl last year. Roy did play seven more minutes than Telfair, but I think you can see that the numbers are comperable. Telfair is not exactly the assist king. Oh yeah, and Telfair shot 40% from the field while Roy shot 51%.



Tell me your not comparing college statistics to NBA ones...Your not trying to do that...are you?

I got some stats for you...

33.2ppg 9.2apg 3.7rpg and 3.0steal per game...53.4% FG% and 45% 3ptFG%

That was Telfair's senior year in HS....about as meaningless of a statistic in comparing him to an NBA player as Roy's college numbers are..

Here are some more for you...12.0ppg 3.3apg 5.3rpg 2.7 TO/g 48% FG% 22.2% 3pFG%...That was Roy's Sophmore year...the same grade that Telfair would have been in college last year... 




> If Telfair is so fast, then why is he averaging only 9.5 pts on 40% shooting. And I don't recall seeing Telfair shut down Nash, Parker or Paul either.


and Roy will? Roy isn't nearly quick enough to handle those guys..and he will struggle against quicker SG as well...

Telfair is a heck of a lot quicker than Roy will ever be and as for Telfair what is your point? 

Steve Nash averaged 9.1ppg 3.4apg 2.1 rpg 1.3 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)...
Devin Harris averaged 9.9ppg 3.2apg 2.3rpg 1.5 TO/g as a 23 yr old (2nd Season)....

Sebastian Telfair averaged 9.5 ppg 3.6apg 1.8rpg 1.7 TO/g as a 20yr old
Jarret Jack averaged 6.7ppg 2.8apg 2.0 rpg 1.3 TO/g as a 22yr old

just for reference.... 

Maybe the fact that Telfair is so young...came directly out of HS and is playing one of the toughest positions in the NBA...might have something to do with his slower development?....Ya think? nah.....



> Again, Roy is not my preference. I'm just trying to rationalize the Blazer's interest. However, I do think Roy is a better defender at the point that Telfair.



Who says they have interest? and who said he is "Nate's choice"?...ooh that is right...fans and the ever omnipotent media




> Weaknesses: Does everything very well but nothing out of this world ... On the small side. Lacks tremendous size and length at just 6-5 and average wing span ... A good athlete, but nothing extraordinary. Not a great leaper or thunderous dunker ... Lacks great body strength. His body is solid but not overpowering ... Foot speed and quickness is strong but wont stand out on the next level ... Defensively he is just average giving solid effort, but lacks the foot speed to be a lock down defender ...


http://www.nbadraft.net/profiles/brandonroy.asp

ying...meet yang

Says here he slow and average....for a SG...I guess that makes him a lockdown defender at PG though....


All seriousness aside....Roy is a pretty good passer for a SG...Could he play PG in spot situations? maybe...but he certainly isn't a better answer there than the THREE PG already on the roster.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> But, I'd rather select Bargnani/Gay/Aldridge/Morrison.


Good call Minstrel....  always liked your logic


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> You do realize that Roy is regarded as not an overly quick defender don't you?


Did you see Roy shut down Dee Brown and Jordan Farmar? Those two are pretty quick and Roy did OK against them.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Did you see Roy shut down Dee Brown and Jordan Farmar? Those two are pretty quick and Roy did OK against them.



is it still shutting down when you score above your seasonal average?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

First off, cool your jets. Breathe . . . slowly. Repeat this "calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean . . . ."



Kmurph said:


> Tell me your not comparing college statistics to NBA ones...Your not trying to do that...are you?


No, I'm not comparing directly, however, the balance of assists and turnovers to minutes does reflect a point guards general approach. FWIW, Roy played on a Huskie team that probably could have beat the Blazers last year.



Kmurph said:


> Who says they have interest? and who said he is "Nate's choice"?...ooh that is right...fans and the ever omnipotent media


"W"

You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but more outlets than the Oregonian have quoted several Blazer execs talking about their interest in Roy, as well as others.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> No, I'm not comparing directly, however, the balance of assists and turnovers to minutes does reflect a point guards general approach. FWIW, Roy played on a Huskie team that probably could have beat the Blazers last year.


Yet, they couldn't beat a horrible Washington St. team twice?...



> You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but more outlets than the Oregonian have quoted several Blazer execs talking about their interest in Roy, as well as others.


Can you give me a link, I don't recall an exec talking publicly about Roy...But I might have forgotten, if they did.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> how about we draft a better *player* at #4 than Roy, and KEEP telfair and jack and wait till one actually, god forbid, proves he's worth keeping over the other?


Listen to THE SMiLE! If we do end up drafting Roy, we can talk about it, but until then why don't we let our PGs who have proven they can play in the NBA fight it out for the starting spot. Why are we favoring a guy that's yet to play a single NBA game over two guys have proven that they can play in the NBA and are 22 and 20 years old, are showing tremendous potential, and still improving?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> is it still shutting down when you score above your seasonal average?


It is "shutting down" when a player (Brown/Farmar) goes off in the first half, then Romar switches Roy to guard him and the player suddenly "goes cold".

Yes, that's what I mean.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> It is "shutting down" when a player (Brown/Farmar) goes off in the first half, then Romar switches Roy to guard him and the player suddenly "goes cold".
> 
> Yes, that's what I mean.


Thats an unproveable accusation unless one of us have a tape of the game or remembers off the top of our head... :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

You can put Roy at PG. You can put him at SG. You can put him on stilts, duct-tape tennis rackets to the ends of his arms and call him a center. He still won't be the 4th best player in the draft.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

PhilK said:


> I'd rather get a decent backup SG or decent bigman for Telfair + #30. Then- Draft Gay/Morrison for SF.
> Great Idea though- trading Telfair.
> Even though losing the king of Koney-Island is pretty tough- I'm starting to think that Jack would be awesome starting for us- And Blake would be ideal for a backup PG- which has a great AST/TRN ratio.


With all due respect, I think this is the worst idea I've ever heard.

Trade our best PG (now), who also has the most upside to improve, to get a "decent backup SG or decent bigman"? Noooooooooooo.

Second worst idea I've ever heard: Trading Telfair to clear out space for Brandon Roy (who is not now nor will ever be a point guard) to play point guard.

I don't think Roy is as good as Morrison or Bargnani or Gay, but even if he were, the issue is simple:

He and Martell play the exact same position. Martell is NOT a 3. Roy is NOT a 1. If they play in the same lineup, someone will be playing out of position and we will be abused. If you want to dump Martell, then draft Roy. If you want to keep Martell, then draft one of the freaking three potential all-star SFs available!

Stepping Razor


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

It's too bad that we can't have Telfair work out against Roy (not allowed by player's union), I think Telfair would expose some defensive weaknesses. I also think Telfari's defense is under rated.

So, I guess I disagree with drafting Roy and trading Telfair. At least I agree with the general principal. Now, if Roy turns out to be much better than Gay and every other player available at the 4 spot, then I think you have to go ahead and take him. We can't worry about need at this point, but should go with the best available.

Also, if we could get something great for Telfair, I don't mind trading him. For instance, I would trade him for the #7 pick, if this was offered.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> FWIW, Roy played on a Huskie team that probably could have beat the Blazers last year.


Ok...now you take a step back on the credibilty meter....

The Huskies would not have beaten the Blazers last year...as bad as they were...



> Did you see Roy shut down Dee Brown and Jordan Farmar? Those two are pretty quick and Roy did OK against them.


and yet on the occassions he was matched up with Mr Morrison he picked up 3 fouls and couldn't contain him, nor could he match up with Gay either when they were matched together...What was that again 3 fouls in a matter of 1 minute? Ok...so one was a tech :biggrin:

and you overate his athleticism and his defensive ability...I seriously doubt he will be a lockdown defender in the NBA or even considered a standout defensive player...

and what about his knee? I came across these interesting comments and I think they bare some concern about Roy



> Does anyone else have concerns about his knees? I was talking to my friend who works for the Suns and he said he thought a lot of teams were starting the overhyping of Roy as a smokescreen, while those same teams are very concerned about the fact that he has had chronic knee issues. He might end up being great, but the more I heard the more concerned I became. I am wondering if that is why the Blazers are now considering moving the #4 or at least looking into it? It appears the knees have been a problem for a while and that Roy had lost some of his quickness due to them, like I said he might end up being great, but when looking at #4 overall I think you want to make sure the guy you are choosing is going to be around for a while.





> You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but more outlets than the Oregonian have quoted several Blazer execs talking about their interest in Roy, as well as others.


Yeah yeah yeah...and at this time last year the "buzz" was clearly on Gerald Green...and the year before that Luke Jackson and Kirk Snyder....

Telfair and Webster weren't the "only" names seriously whispered and discussed....they only grew louder as the draft approached (Webster specifically)



> the balance of assists and turnovers to minutes does reflect a point guards general approach.


Well this doesn't bode well for Jack then, whose A\TO was no better than Telfair's....
and trying to "reflect\compare" the HS\college statistics of one player to those of an NBA player is not even in the same ballpark..


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

This is not a good idea. I like Brandon Roy to a point but after giving it some thought I had endorsed him at four but I don't anymore. If Morrison is not available at No. 4, then whatever F or big that is available needs chosen (but I believe in my heart of hearts that Morrison is the best fit on the Blazers AND the one who's going to generate the most interest out of the draft class in terms of PR, filling the seats, things like that, and that's aside from what Morrison brings *on* the floor).

The Blazers do not need to draft another guard when there are already three excellent PGs on the team (Blake, Jack, and Telfair -- note I listed them alphabetically), all of whom are gamers with great attitudes and great work ethics, and not enough PT for all three of them. Telfair is obviously the favorite son of Blazer Nation, and why not? He can play, he's one of those rare high school kids with some sense and maturity and except for that one misstep, has been a good community guy. Obviously he stays.

With all due respect, however, the idea that Steve Blake is too old to get better is a steaming, stinking crock of crap. If HE felt that way, why the hell would he bother to be busting his butt and practically "living" at the practice facility this summer (documented not just in the O-Live blogs but also Barrett's blog)? Oh and there's that whole being an expectant father thing, so I would venture to guess his mind is pretty cluttered with different Very Big Things, and he's STILL working to improve himself and his game -- and he's the most experienced (if not the flashiest) of the three guards, taking into consideration 3 years in the NBA including significant minutes as a rookie (when Gilbert Arenas was hurt during the 2003-2004 season). I want to think the only reason the Blazers would jettison him has NOTHING to do with any deficiencies in talent or character but the simple reason that the Blazers have no Bird rights to him, and they could buy low (and they did) and possibly sell a little higher.

Now, about Jarrett Jack. The reason I don't think he should go anywhere is because he's one of the few Blazers with significant NCAA experience (meaning a minimum of two seasons of NCAA ball), as opposed to being someone who came straight out of high school. No disrespect to the high school kids intended because Telfair and Webster, to me, are *clear exceptions* to my belief that high school kids aren't mature enough in game or in emotional development to jump to the NBA (LeBron James is the other very obvious exception, Kobe Bryant -- character flaws and all -- might be another). But for every well-adjusted kid like a Telfair or a Webster there seem to be more that aren't mentally or emotionally ready for the gobs of money that come their way, or not as prepared for the NBA game as they think they are.

And had he not gotten hurt last December, Telfair's own advancement would be that much further ahead. I also remind this about Jack -- he was NOT 100% last season (ankle). Can you imagine what he'd be like a whole season AT 100%? (someone else mentioned this and I should give him credit, so whoever you are, thanks ... but it bears repeating).

Sorry about the angry screed but something earlier in the thread just kind of rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

If we could get something like the #7 pick for him I would trade Telfair in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't believe his value would fetch us a pick that high. We could probably get a pick in the lower third of the 1st round for him, but I wouldn't do that.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> If we could get something like the #7 pick for him I would trade Telfair in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't believe his value would fetch us a pick that high. We could probably get a pick in the lower third of the 1st round for him, but I wouldn't do that.



Just because you don't like him doesn't mean rational people in the NBA don't drool over his speed, youth, court vision and potential.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> and yet on the occassions he was matched up with Mr Morrison he picked up 3 fouls and couldn't contain him, nor could he match up with Gay either when they were matched together...What was that again 3 fouls in a matter of 1 minute? Ok...so one was a tech :biggrin:


The discussion here is can Roy guard PGs, not SFs. Roy is not a 2/3, he is a 1/2 (actually 2/1). I hear that Aldridge can't guard PGs. Maybe we should stop considering him too.



Kmurph said:


> Yeah yeah yeah...and at this time last year the "buzz" was clearly on Gerald Green...
> Telfair and Webster weren't the "only" names seriously whispered and discussed....they only grew louder as the draft approached (Webster specifically)


Patterson admitted in a recent interview that there were strongly considering Green for their pick, but when he wouldn't work out competitively, they dropped him and he slid way down. Green was real, he just messed it up.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

tlong said:


> If we could get something like the #7 pick for him I would trade Telfair in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't believe his value would fetch us a pick that high. We could probably get a pick in the lower third of the 1st round for him, but I wouldn't do that.


I agree with you somewhat, except I think Telfair could net a late lottery pick. He would clearly have increased value to a team like NJ or NY, where his marketing appeal could be maximized.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Just because you don't like him doesn't mean rational people in the NBA don't drool over his speed, youth, court vision and potential.


...and of course it doesn't mean that they do. Rational people in the NBA might be a bit concerned about his decision making, lack of size, and lack of a respectable J. Rational NBA people don't relay their true thoughts out for us mere fans on most anything. You pretending to be in the know of what they're thinking is only that... you pretending.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Just because you don't like him doesn't mean rational people in the NBA don't drool over his speed, youth, court vision and potential.


He couldn't even hold down a starting spot on the worst team in the NBA... it's entirely possible that people think that he's a great prospect, but I think it's more likely that his stock is lower now than it was at the time he was drafted.

Of course we won't know unless he's traded...

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> If we could get something like the #7 pick for him I would trade Telfair in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I don't believe his value would fetch us a pick that high. We could probably get a pick in the lower third of the 1st round for him, but I wouldn't do that.



yeah.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> ...and of course it doesn't mean that they do. Rational people in the NBA might be a bit concerned about his decision making, lack of size, and lack of a respectable J. Rational NBA people don't relay their true thoughts out for us mere fans on most anything. You pretending to be in the know of what they're thinking is only that... you pretending.
> 
> STOMP


kettle, please meet mr pot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> kettle, please meet mr pot.


No. STOMP isn't claiming that anyone's wrong. mediocre man *did* claim that "rational NBA people[/b] are in love with Telfair, implying that tlong's assertion of Telfair's value around the league is off-base.

There's no evidence either way, really.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> No. STOMP isn't claiming that anyone's wrong. mediocre man *did* claim that "rational NBA people[/b] are in love with Telfair, implying that tlong's assertion of Telfair's value around the league is off-base.
> 
> There's no evidence either way, really.
> 
> Ed O.


in regards to being "in the know" or knowing people who are "in the know"...
I know something you don't know..you don't know..you don't know..I know something you don't know..ha ha ha ha ha

my point is, stomp is basically pretending that he knows if mm is in the know...you don't know who he knows, or what he knows. so really, stomp is accusing mm of doing stuff that stomp himself does.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> He couldn't even hold down a starting spot on the worst team in the NBA... it's entirely possible that people think that he's a great prospect, but I think it's more likely that his stock is lower now than it was at the time he was drafted.
> 
> Of course we won't know unless he's traded...
> 
> Ed O.


That's sort of a BS statement. Telfair was the starter until he was injured. When he returned Nate did something most coaches don't and had Telfair lose his starting job because of injury. The team played no better with Blake and I'd be curious to know if any other team had more starting lineups than the Blazers did this past year.

If you're going to blame Telfair not starting on someone blame it on Nate, not Telfair.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> That's sort of a BS statement. Telfair was the starter until he was injured. When he returned Nate did something most coaches don't and had Telfair lose his starting job because of injury. The team played no better with Blake and I'd be curious to know if any other team had more starting lineups than the Blazers did this past year.


It's not BS at all. It's totally fact.

I didn't claim that the team did any better with Blake, but since I think that Blake pretty much sucks, that the team didn't do better with TELFAIR is another strike against him.



> If you're going to blame Telfair not starting on someone blame it on Nate, not Telfair.


Why? Telfair had every opportunity to earn the job back; there was simply no reason for Nate NOT to give him the job if he'd earned it. He's just not good enough.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> my point is, stomp is basically pretending that he knows if mm is in the know...you don't know who he knows, or what he knows. so really, stomp is accusing mm of doing stuff that stomp himself does.


Again: no.

tlong made a statement, and mediocre man disagreed with it, saying that "rational NBA people" value Telfair much more highly. STOMP said that there was no evidence that could determine it one way or the other.

That's not the same thing. Only mm, in this example, claims to have knowledge or an opinion that invalidates the position of others.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Al Jefferson couldn't hold down a starting job since he's been in the league but Telfair has, but yet Ed and tlong lead us to believe Jefferson is a better prospect and should have been taken over Telfair with our #13 pick. Wow, talk about consistency.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Al Jefferson couldn't hold down a starting job since he's been in the league but Telfair has, but yet Ed and tlong lead us to believe Jefferson is a better prospect and should have been taken over Telfair with our #13 pick. Wow, talk about consistency.


Where is the inconsistency? Neither could hold down a starting job. That doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other. 

Telfair is still more about potential than anything else. Potential is completely based on speculation, and reasonable people will disagree about how much that is worth.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Al Jefferson couldn't hold down a starting job since he's been in the league but Telfair has, but yet Ed and tlong lead us to believe Jefferson is a better prospect and should have been taken over Telfair with our #13 pick. Wow, talk about consistency.


I don't necessarily agree with Ed's assessment of Jefferson, BUT...

Ed specifically said Telfair couldn't hold a startng job on the worst team in the league.

Is Jefferson on the worst team in the league? I'm pretty sure he isn't, because I didn't see his name on our roster last year.

Wow, talk about apples and oranges....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Again: no.
> 
> tlong made a statement, and mediocre man disagreed with it, saying that "rational NBA people" value Telfair much more highly. STOMP said that there was no evidence that could determine it one way or the other.
> 
> That's not the same thing. Only mm, in this example, claims to have knowledge or an opinion that invalidates the position of others.


bingo!

I never claimed to be in the know of what rational NBA people think on this issue. MM is only a fan making his guesses of whats what like the rest of us. If he has access to the opinions of rational NBA types who support his view, then by all means he should relay/link them. Making unsupported claims of how these unnamed fountains of wisdom view matters reads like silly posturing IMO.

STOMP


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I don't necessarily agree with Ed's assessment of Jefferson, BUT...
> 
> Ed specifically said Telfair couldn't hold a startng job on the worst team in the league.
> 
> ...


What's the difference? Marvin Williams is on the 2nd or 3rd worst team in the league, are we to discount his basketball playing abilities because he didn't start? Big flip. Felton didn't even start for the 'Cats until Knight went down with injuries, must we say that just because he didn't start and his team was horrible that all he is at the moment is potential?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Reep said:


> Where is the inconsistency? Neither could hold down a starting job. That doesn't mean that one isn't better than the other.


That's the point I'm trying to make. 



> Telfair is still more about potential than anything else. Potential is completely based on speculation, and reasonable people will disagree about how much that is worth.


Sure, everything is subjective but to say in Telfair's two year career, the only thing he's flashed is potential is incorrect. He has had some very productive games that any NBA would be lucky to get out of their veteran point guards.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Al Jefferson couldn't hold down a starting job since he's been in the league but Telfair has, but yet Ed and tlong lead us to believe Jefferson is a better prospect and should have been taken over Telfair with our #13 pick. Wow, talk about consistency.


Yes, I believe Jefferson is a better prospect. He hasn't been a consistent starter due to ankle problems. However, he has had many excellent performances when healthy. I just have a peculiar preference for 6-10, 265 lbs guys with talent over 5-11, 165 lbs guys with talent.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

tlong said:


> Yes, I believe Jefferson is a better prospect. He hasn't been a consistent starter due to ankle problems. However, he has had many excellent performances when healthy. I just have a peculiar preference for 6-10, 265 lbs guys with talent over 5-11, 165 lbs guys with talent.


Telfair wasn't a consistent starter due to injury problems as well last season. Your preference is fine but Telfair has had just as many if not more productivity in the 2 years he's been in the league.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

I agree with the guy who said "no, no, no." Just no! 

Keep what we have; draft the best player available; try to get rid of Darius this year (if we don't, then tough beans) and keep on going with what we have. I don't think a major shake-up is what we need every single year. You have to give teams time to build, and grow together. You can't just say, "well, it didn't work out this year. I guess we gotta make a bunch of changes again." ****ing no! That isn't how it works.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

STOMP said:


> bingo!
> 
> I never claimed to be in the know of what rational NBA people think on this issue. MM is only a fan making his guesses of whats what like the rest of us. If he has access to the opinions of rational NBA types who support his view, then by all means he should relay/link them. Making unsupported claims of how these unnamed fountains of wisdom view matters reads like silly posturing IMO.
> 
> STOMP


 I wish MM was in the 'know" and other GMs viewed Telfair that way. The only log jam the Blazers have is at the PG position, and if Telfair's trade value was high, there might be some trades to be done out there.

Right now I'm not big on trading Telfair because I don't think he is generating a lot of interest, so why not keep him and see if he turns that raw talent into starting NBA PG material.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Again: no.
> 
> tlong made a statement, and mediocre man disagreed with it, saying that "rational NBA people" value Telfair much more highly. STOMP said that there was no evidence that could determine it one way or the other.
> 
> ...


stomp is implying that mm is pretending to know something,w hen stomp is pretending he knows something.

same thing.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> stomp is implying that mm is pretending to know something,w hen stomp is pretending he knows something.
> 
> same thing.


You get a frowny face on your reading comprehension skills.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Fork said:


> You get a frowny face on your reading comprehension skills.


Nice. :laugh: 

In an attempt to try and get things back on track (probably a useless exercise), now that Rice also thinks Roy is the man, * [ASSUMPTION=FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION] and if he is correct,[/ASSUMPTION]* what do you think the Blazers' intentions are? 

1) Roy is the best player to help the team win next year. So he competes with Webster for the starting SG. If Roy wins, then Roy starts and Webster is the SG/SF sixth man.

2) Webster is the starting SG, Roy is there to backup the SG and PG positions.

3) The team changes its plans and moves Webster to SF with Roy starting at SG (no PG minutes)

4) The obviously unpopular Roy = Future PG plan (I would like to hear someone ask Nate about this)

5) This whole thing is a smokescreen to get teams 1-3 to take Roy, so something better falls to Portland.

My vote is #5, nothing else makes sense to me.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> Nice. :laugh:
> 
> In an attempt to try and get things back on track (probably a useless exercise), now that Rice also thinks Roy is the man, * [ASSUMPTION=FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION] and if he is correct,[/ASSUMPTION]* what do you think the Blazers' intentions are?
> 
> ...


I pray for #5.

Otherwise, I think it's #6: Our management are complete ****ing idiots.

Stepping Razor


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> stomp is implying that mm is pretending to know something,w hen stomp is pretending he knows something.
> 
> same thing.


But the onus is on the presenter of said information to back up their facts.

If someone said "My brother's roommate's ex-girlfriend's cat's veternarian said the Blazers were going to trade Joel for Rasheed" we'd all discredit that person and directly ask for links. We don't KNOW that that isn't going to happen, but we also don't have the onus on us to prove anything.

I'm pretty certain MM does know somebody in the know, and I know he also doesn't care if people believe him or not. But regardless of all that, Stomp hasn't said anything we wouldn't have all thrown on someone else.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> Nice. :laugh:
> 
> In an attempt to try and get things back on track (probably a useless exercise), now that Rice also thinks Roy is the man, * [ASSUMPTION=FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION] and if he is correct,[/ASSUMPTION]* what do you think the Blazers' intentions are?
> 
> ...


I think that it's a combination of #1 and #3. I think that, given the criteria of the current regime, Roy might be the "best" player AND I think that they see Roy as being capable of starting at the 2 next year, whether it's ahead of Webster or pushing Webster to the 3.

The issue that I have is the criteria (again: this is my perception, and I understand that I might be getting my panties in a bunch over inaccurate perceptions) for a selection of Roy. 

-- He's mature as a player. Four years of school, including being a leader on a pretty successful team.
-- He's mature as a person. Well-spoken and not a troublemaker.
-- He's a good player.
-- He's got room to improve.
-- He's good defensively (Nate effect).

To me, the third and fourth things are absolutely the crux of any selection, but last year with the drafting of Webster we heard a lot of "he'll do the city proud" and "he's a very mature young man"-type of stuff. I'd expect that we'll hear the same if/when Roy is selected this year.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Patterson admitted in a recent interview that there were strongly considering Green for their pick, but when he wouldn't work out competitively, they dropped him and he slid way down. Green was real, he just messed it up.


Yes and this was later in the process....not this early in it....thus making my point. Interestingly enough it is Roy who is the one who has lately avoided competitive workouts against other top tier prospects....



> However, he has had many excellent performances when healthy. I just have a peculiar preference for 6-10, 265 lbs guys with talent over 5-11, 165 lbs guys with talent.


Oh I agree...Jefferson is a much better prospect than Chris Paul :whofarted:

Size has nothing to do with it...one is a PF the other is a PG...that is a worthless point you made...congratulations...I guess...

And I was unaware that Jefferson was the only player who had excellent performances.....Telfair did as well, and more of them....and yet, you persist on feeding into your own delusions....



> The discussion here is can Roy guard PGs, not SFs. Roy is not a 2/3, he is a 1/2 (actually 2/1). I hear that Aldridge can't guard PGs. Maybe we should stop considering him too.


If he can't guard athletic players at SG..then there is no way in He!! he is going to be able to guard athletic PG's...you dream Reep...and you overate him as a defensive player...GREATLY

Again ...I will post these for reference...b\c some of the "haters" in here just can't seem to get it through their thick skulls. Telfair is pretty young, out of HS (and that does make a difference) and is trying to play the toughest position in the NBA...and even having said all that, his statistics favorably compare with other PG who came into the NBA at a much older age, and with the benefit of college experience....

Steve Nash averaged 9.1ppg 3.4apg 2.1 rpg 1.3 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)
Devin Harris averaged 9.9ppg 3.2apg 2.3rpg 1.5 TO/g as a 23 yr old (2nd Season)
Sam Cassell averaged 9.5ppg 4.9 apg 2.6 rpg 2.0 TO/g as a 25yr old (2nd Season)
Gary Payton averaged 9.4ppg 6.2apg 3.6rpg 2.1 TO/g as a 23yr old (2nd Season)
Luke Ridnour averaged 10.0ppg 5.9 apg 2.5rpg 1.8 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)
Chauncy Billups averaged 13.9ppg 3.8apg 2.1rpg 2.2TO/g as a 22yr old (2nd Season)
Jason Williams averaged 12.3ppg 7.3apg 2.9rpg 3.7 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)
Deron Williams averaged 10.8ppg 4.5apg 2.4rpg 1.8 TO/g as a 21yr old (Rookie)

Sebastian Telfair averaged 9.5 ppg 3.6apg 1.8rpg 1.7 TO/g as a 20yr old (2nd Season)
Jarret Jack averaged 6.7ppg 2.8apg 2.0 rpg 1.3 TO/g as a 22yr old (Rookie)

Just to be fair, here are players whose statistics were much better than Telfair's in their 2nd season...however, many were at minimum 2 years older at that point that Telfair

Mike Bibby averaged 14.5ppg 8.1apg 3.7rpg 3.0 TO/g as a 22yr old (2nd Season)
Kirk Hinrich averaged 15.7ppg 6.4apg 3.9rpg 2.3 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)
Jason Kidd averaged 16.6ppg 9.7apg 6.8rpg 4.0 TO/g as a 23yr old (2nd Season)
Andre Miller averaged 15.8ppg 8.0apg 4.3 rpg 3.2 TO/g as a 25yr old (2nd Season)
Tony Parker averaged 15,5ppg 5.3apg 2.6rpg 2.4TO/g as a 21yr old (2nd Season)

Shaun Livingston averaged 5.8ppg 4.5apg 2.3rpg 1.8 TO/g as a 20yr old (2nd Season)
Jameer Nelson averaged 14.6ppg 4.9apg 2.3rpg 2.4 TO/g as a 24yr old (2nd Season)
Chris Paul averaged 16.1ppg 7.8apg 5.1rpg 2.3 TO/g as a 21yr old (Rookie)

one calculation not taken into effect is minutes per game

Telfair would have ranked 31st on this list 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...=pg&qual=true&seasontype=2&pos=pg&season=2006


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> -- He's mature as a player. Four years of school, including being a leader on a pretty successful team.
> -- He's mature as a person. Well-spoken and not a troublemaker.
> -- He's a good player.
> -- He's got room to improve.
> -- He's good defensively (Nate effect).


He's also had a significant knee injury and there are rumors of chronic knee problems.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Chris Paul averaged 16.1ppg 7.8apg 5.1rpg 2.3 TO/g as a 21yr old (Rookie)


Nitpick: Paul was only 20. He just turned 21 last month.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> He's also had a significant knee injury and there are rumors of chronic knee problems.


I was listing reasons that the team would draft him (not the reasons that I would draft him), and I doubt that a knee injury would be a reason to draft the guy. 

But he only missed 9 games with his knee injury. It seems very likely that his knee issues are just being blown out of proportion by people that already have decided drafting Roy would be a mistake.

As another aside, here's an interesting fluff piece on Roy from November (before he kicked *** his senior year): http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cbasketball/247802_roy10.html

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> As another aside, here's an interesting fluff piece on Roy from November (before he kicked *** his senior year): http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/cbask...7802_roy10.html


Bah...

Down with Husky propoganda...

:biggrin:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> He's also had a significant knee injury and there are rumors of chronic knee problems.


You say that as if you're trying to convince US that he isn't a great prospect. I can't think of a single person on this board who is gung ho to take Roy with the #4 pick. We're just trying to get our minds right so it isn't a depressing draft day when we find out that he IS the pick. 

And if he isn't, that's a pleasant surprise.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Yes and this was later in the process....*not this early in it*....thus making my point.


Blazer management found out that Green wouldn't work out competively when they talked to his agent about scheduling the workout. Let's see . . . when would that have been? Oh yeah, about now. If not now, when do you think the Blazers learned about this. Here's a link to help.

Green will only do solo workout 

This was published on June 15. Nash and the Blazers would have known about this and been negotiating it at least a few days prior to that. 

Now it's your turn. Upon what facts are you basing the above statement?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

what is today's date again?

that's right June 7th

when are Morrison\Roy\Gay and Foye coming in?

um...June 15th....

All the hype about Roy to POR has been now...not a week from now...

I don't get your point here Reep...


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> You say that as if you're trying to convince US that he isn't a great prospect. I can't think of a single person on this board who is gung ho to take Roy with the #4 pick. We're just trying to get our minds right so it isn't a depressing draft day when we find out that he IS the pick.


Fair enough...I don't think he a great prospect, aprticularly vs the other players that will likely be sitting there for POR to select at #4....

and your right, we will just have wait and see what POR mgmt does, and whether we like the pick or not...move on...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> what is today's date again?
> 
> that's right June 7th
> 
> ...


Okay, how about this:


> Wednesday, May 25, 2005
> 
> Early speculation
> Here's a roundup of what some of the major mock draft sites are saying about the top three picks.
> ...


I'm pretty sure there was some discussions on this board also. Green to Portland was clearly being discussed.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'm pretty sure there was some discussions on this board also. Green to Portland was clearly being discussed.


What are you arguing here? I am confused...You SEEMED to argue that all this speculation (including Wheels\Rice and Barrett) about Roy to POR indicated that he was the guy they are going to select....

and then you show me quotes about POR interest in Gerald Green, and they ended up taking Webster.

That was my point all along...Just b\c Roy is the flavor of the week doesn't mean he will be the pick...just like Gerald Green, a lot can happen b\t now and draft day...


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Breathing life back into the idea at the beginning of this thread--the Snoregonian:



> McMillan said. "It depends on how you plan on using a guy like (Roy). What is his best position? Some people say his best position may be the point. So that's something I will talk to Romar about. But I won't get into that conversation until I see Brandon."
> 
> Even if McMillan finds that Roy's best position is point guard, the Blazers have three players at that position who saw extensive action last season: Steve Blake, Jarrett Jack and Sebastian Telfair. Still, McMillan said Roy is alluring because of his versatility.


Someone needs to call Romar and see if he will spill on what he thinks Roy can do. *Note to Jason Quick:* it would have been nice if you could have followed up and asked Romar about Roy's PG abilities.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Roy at PG in the NBA is a laugher...

It won't be fun watching him try and contain all th speedy PG in the NBA...particularly with the hand check rule....Heck, he couldn't contain most athletic swingman in college...let alone PG's....

And another thing...I am becoming more and more opposed to "Nate guy's"

I'll tell you what "Nate" guy's are.....They are mediocre fill-in types who make nice complimentary players to teams that already have their established centerpieces but otherwise are quite worthless on their own...

exhibt A...Nate McMillan the player

exhibit B....Brandon Roy....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think that we can say that Roy can't play PG in the NBA... offense is the key, not defense. Defensive weaknesses can be schemed around and it happens all the time in the league.

Heck, Telfair can't guard PGs, but that doesn't stop HIM from playing the point.

Ed o.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Ed....

First of all Telfair is not the horrible defender some here like to portray him as....and he certainly better suited to guard PG than Roy is.....

I agree that defensive weaknesss can be schemed as well...Roy makes a nice passing SG...but a weak passing PG IMO...

Seriously...what is next with this guy? That he is fatere than a locomotive and can leap over buildings in a single bound?

I didn't know we were drafting Superman....

better watch that krypto...err...knee injury...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Ed....
> 
> First of all Telfair is not the horrible defender some here like to portray him as....and he certainly better suited to guard PG than Roy is.....
> 
> ...


YOU are the one that has to keep stretching to bash him.

McMillan thinks he might be a PG? Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about...

Telfair is a decent defensive guard...

Roy is still affected by a knee injury...

It seems that you don't like Huskies, so you're anti-Roy. Which is fine, but it makes you less credible on this front IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> McMillan thinks he might be a PG? Clearly he doesn't know what he's talking about...


If he thinks that way...then clearly he doesn't....



> Telfair is a decent defensive guard...


 As decent as Blake or Jack are...this is not an outlandish statement...



> Roy is still affected by a knee injury...


I think two seperate knee injuries to seperate knees...warrants concern? Wouldn't you? 



> It seems that you don't like Huskies, so you're anti-Roy. Which is fine, but it makes you less credible on this front IMO.


I don't....I am not necessarily and no it doesn't....

IMO


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> how about we draft a better *player* at #4 than Roy, and KEEP telfair and jack and wait till one actually, god forbid, proves he's worth keeping over the other?


well, potentially they did draft someone better at 4 (in a round about way) so I wasn't too wrong there. But it is nice to know I wasn't the only one who under-sold Brandon on his talents, nor was I the only one who owned up to being wrong about him.


Although Im not sure if in my post responding to Tlongs suggestion we should try to get the 7th pick for Telfair but he didn't think we could, that I was saying "yeah we could" or "yeah....(as in probably correct)"

It's interesting to see what some of us felt about players, and how in retrospect we were right or wrong. none of us are free from those 'what the hell was I thinking?' moments. For every "jefferson is better than telfair", there's a "glen davis is the only player who can help the Blazers next year".


----------

