# Game Thread: Mavericks @ Blazers 11-12-06



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Game 7: 
Dallas Mavericks
@ 
Portland Trail Blazers​

*







@







*
(1-4) - (4-2)​
*Date: Sunday, November 12th*
*Time: 6:00 p.m. PST*
*Arena: Rose Garden*
*T.V.: NBALP, FSNNW*
*Mavericks' Last Game: Win*
*Blazer's Last Game: Win*
*Last Meeting This Season: N/A*

*Blazer's Lineup:*


































*Key Reserves:*






















*Juan Dixon*/*LaMarcus Aldridge*/*Travis Outlaw*​

_*VS.*_​

*Mavericks' Lineup:*


































*Key Reserves:*






















*Anthony Johnson*/*Devean George */*Greg Buckner*​*
Key Matchup:​*







VS










*Blazer Freak's Keys To The Game:*
Brandon will be out this game, so again we just need to continue to feed it to Zach and let him abuse the other team's big men. A win here could hinge on Zach getting Dirk in foul trouble.

*Team Report:*


> The Trail Blazers are fortunate. They didn't want the Dallas Mavericks to come to Portland Sunday without a victory. Last year's NBA finalists got their first win Thursday at Phoenix, but the Blazers know the the 1-4 Mavs present a problem despite their record. Dirk Nowitzki, who exploded for 35 points against the Suns, is an almost impossible matchup for Portland, and Jason Terry, who had 30 in the Phoenix game, is just another challenge for Blazer point guard Jarrett Jack.


*FOXsports.net*​
*Predicition: Blazers Win*
*Prediction Record: 2-0*(W-L)


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

Geez, when I saw the title of this thread I had a flashback to the first round of the 2003 playoffs.

Of course, tha would have been - Game 7: Blazers @ Mavericks

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

Interesting thought about that playoff series. Zbo ate them alive that series, and he is playing better now. Due to Josh Howard being out, the Mavs will not have as good as bench since Stackhouse will start in his place. I still look for this to be a high scoring game, even with both teams being a little bit thin with injuries.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

I'll be going to this game, and I can't wait to see Aldridge play. Should be very interesting, and our win will hinge on Zach having yet another dominant game.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

This is going to be a difficult game. Zach is going to be spending a lot of his energy chasing around Dirk, so Zach is going to need 2 other players to really step up offensivly if the Blazers are going to win. Webster, Outlaw and Jack are going to have step up. I hope Webster can start draining the three ball.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

i think they are going to put outlaw on dirk for most of the game and play a small lineup with Zach at the 5


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

I really hope LA gets 10-15 minutes of burn tonight. Regardless of if he plays well or not, I want a chance to see him play with his teammates and against NBA players.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*



Nate McVillain said:


> This is going to be a difficult game. Zach is going to be spending a lot of his energy chasing around Dirk, so Zach is going to need 2 other players to really step up offensivly if the Blazers are going to win. Webster, Outlaw and Jack are going to have step up. I hope Webster can start draining the three ball.


I expect the Blazers will mix up who defends Nowitzki, the same way Dallas will not put the same person on Zach the whole night. Outlaw, Magloire, Randolph, and Aldridge (maybe even Udoka and Graham) will probably all take turns on Dirk.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*



Public Defender said:


> I expect the Blazers will mix up who defends Nowitzki, the same way Dallas will not put the same person on Zach the whole night. Outlaw, Magloire, Randolph, and Aldridge (maybe even Udoka and Graham) will probably all take turns on Dirk.


Yup. That's what I was thinking as well. IMO, this could be a very good game.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

It will be interesting to see if LaMarcus guards Dirk for any significant amount of minutes (or even if LaMarcus plays anything more than 10 or 12 minutes in his first game). Without Joel, he's the only Blazer on the active roster who can match Dirk's length. Dirk isn't exactly a banger either. So, that favors the longer thinner Aldridge guarding him. Still, that's a tough assignement for a rookie in his first game. Also, with the refs calling fouls the way they are, Aldridge on Dirk could spell quick foul trouble for the kid. Still, it would be fun to see, if only for a few minutes.

On the other end, whoever Avery puts on Zach is going to have their hands full. Look for a quick double team every time Zach touches the ball. I hope he can find his open team mates and they can knock down their shots.

Should be a fun game - and this time we don't have to worry about Sheed and Bonzi combining for 2 pts. in the first half and Nick Van Exel torching us for 26 off the Mavs bench.

BNM


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

Stackhouse destroyed the team last season at the Rose Garden. But the Blazers pushed them to overtime, and THIS Blazers team is better than that group of guys last season ... so it's a push, I guess. I think it'll be a competitive game. We'll see if the Mavs come out like a 1-4 team or the Western Conference champions.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

Everyone knows game 7s always goes to the home team! 

GO BLAZERS!!!!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

My hopes are for stretches of Aldridge, Randolph, Travis, Webster and Jack. That's a good offensive unit as well as being good defensively


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*

anyone else think we should psot up Martell on a much smaller Jason Terry/Devin Harris?


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Game 7: Mavericks @ Blazers*



MAS RipCity said:


> anyone else think we should psot up Martell on a much smaller Jason Terry/Devin Harris?


Martell has the strength, but not the footwork skills to post up yet. I would rather leave post ups to Zach. Jarrett and even Grahm can also post up a little and LA is very good at posting up against lighter players.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

I'll be there, it'll be fun.

I see Zach having a bad game, I don't think the officials are going to call alot of fouls on Dirk, so he'll be free to hack away at Zach and Zach won't get too many free throws. Lets hope Martell and Ime have big nights. Jack is gonna have a hell of a time guarding Terry. I have a hard time understanding why the Mavs are 1-4 right now.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

any word on who won the naming rights to MB and Mrs MB's little MB?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Dude, blazers look like they just woke up and are fighting off post dream woozyness.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

We can't keep getting down early and expect to come back.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

i know we have a bunch of guys out, but 4 points....i'm starting to get a little upset....


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Come on Dixon, get hot!


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

WU-HU! LaMarcus on the court!


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

La!!!!!!!!!


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

OK, after that Quarter- 11 isn't bad..

Now, The beginning of second is important.. Dixon seems like he's hot tonight and that's good.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Be nice if someone would pass LA the ball.


----------



## Saint Baller (May 3, 2006)

Good game so far, Blazers aren't doing to well, alot of turnovers for them.

Dirk having a good game so far, Zach not so hott.


----------



## Saint Baller (May 3, 2006)

Blazedrs coming back...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

how are we down only 1?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

also, outlaw's D on dirk will be the key tonight. I hope he keeps defending him.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> how are we down only 1?


How else? Allah is watching over us...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

travis really could end up like an ak47 type player if he keeps up his progression.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Just down three at halftime. Not a bad spot for us.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

great job martell! huge 3 to put us up by 2...


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i think we should just start small against teams like this


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

Nate needs to learn that zach and jamal cannot play together he wonders why we fall apart. mags clogsthe lane it dosen't work we need to go samll travis should be on nowitski itslike nate hust dosen't see it. Its not gonna work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Where would the Blazers be without this eerily perfect free throw shooting?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

LOL @ "And there's the elbow to the face as Aldridge establishes himself early..."


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Aldridge isn't looking bad at all! He came out kind of tight but looks relax and just playing ball now.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

aldridge > morrison


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Come back kids! Be so cool if we can pull this off!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> aldridge > morrison


You won't get any argument from me! He looks like he has the whole package. He just got the rebound and scored!!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Come on DIxon, pass the ball around some! Get a good shot!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

dixon.. clank


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

This guy can play!!! Aldridge is playing great for his first game in the NBA. 4 of 8 shooting and 7 rebounds in 17 minutes. And he has altered shots and runs the floor beautifully


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

aldridge with 6 offensive rebounds in 17 minutes


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

that reb and shot was art


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Man, I wish I could have been there to watch Aldridge's first game!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> that reb and shot was art


That was so sweet!

We got a bright future!


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

I'm thinking Aldridge is going to be a key player for the Blazers. He looks like a hard working and composed player. He is a beast on the boards tonight!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

mr magloire meet mr bench


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Shouldn't forget Jack even if this does turn into a loss... 20 pts, 10 assists, 4 steals..


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

LA got 10 points and 8 rebounds in only 19 mins. Almost a double double in his first game. Six O rebounds!


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> mr magloire meet mr bench


:laugh:

may be a lost for you guys tonight, but with Aldridge, Roy and Jack all looking good so far and Zach playing like a beast, this team is looking good from this point on.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

morrison is now shooting .323 for the season, gay not much better and he's
getting shut out tonight. aldridge might end up the ROY favorite before roy comes
back.


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

Thoughts: I think we lost for three reasons. dixons stupid *** three at the begining of the shot clock,the non call on harris's travel leading to terrys three. and the fact the we got stuck in a whole start aldredge instead of freaking jamal the reason we fall behind I believe is becasue of him. I hope he is gone. Aldredge should start. The nab needs to implement a challenge rule in the last five minutes that ruined the game for us.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sucks to lose, but I do like what came out of the game. Jack with a good game, LaMarcus didn't look lost out there, and the team didn't give up.

They just ran into a team thats better, and knows how to finish games.

Seems that LaMarcus isn't the "project" some wanted him to be. He had an incredibly impressive 1st ever game, after so few practices.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I hate to play the "moral victory" card, but I'm not that depressed about the loss.

Aldridge did well on both ends of the floor. I was extremely impressed with his play, especially crashing the offensive boards. Too early to say he'll be a stud in this league, but it was a good first agme.

Zach got 20 and 9, even as he was struggling with so many aspects of his game tonight.

Jack went for 20 and 10, in addition to 4 steals.

Dixon did well and made some important shots that keyed multiple runs.

So not all is lost, fellow fans. The Comeback Kids can't win 'em all ... if only they didn't have to come back from those huge deficits!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> morrison is now shooting .323 for the season, gay not much better and he's
> getting shut out tonight. aldridge might end up the ROY favorite before roy comes
> back.


Naw, Aldridge is to soft. :biggrin:


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Hap said:


> Seems that LaMarcus isn't the "project" some wanted him to be. He had an incredibly impressive 1st ever game, after so few practices.


Yeah, it's a shame that there are "fans" who want a Blazer to fail.

I, for one, am thrilled about this team!!!!


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Aldridge was very impressive! And he has not even scrimmaged with the team? Wow, that was a great first outing. He will add a lot to this team. He's easily better than Jamal/Joel/Raef...and Morrison.

Jack played great as well. It's nice to have a smart, big, defensive player at the 1.

Randolph struggled with his shot, but he worked hard and had a solid game.

Encouraging game, despite the loss.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

wastro said:


> Aldridge did well on both ends of the floor. I was extremely impressed with his play, especially crashing the offensive boards. Too early to say he'll be a stud in this league, but it was a good first agme.



no, assuming he stays healthy it's not too early. he showed everything it takes to be a "stud" in HIS FIRST FRICKIN NBA GAME.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

What the hell is up with Martell? Before the injury he was looking good and now he's not getting enough minutes or shots out there. I expect more out of him even though he's so young, I don't think he's getting much of an opportunity shooting so few shots. He needs to understand that he needs to be more aggressive offensively and to not only wait around the perimeter, he needs to slash more.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> What the hell is up with Martell?


looks like he's having confidence problems - seems more nervous than he has in the past.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

It's a positive to remember that this was without Brandon and Joel (Jamaal might as well just rebound and do nothing else. infact, please..just rebound jamaal) that they fought hard against the defending WC champ.

Even with a 1-4 record (going into the game) this IS the Mavs we're talking about. The team didn't give up against them. One of the reasons they lost tonight, imho, was their youth. If Joel and Brandon play, I think it improves their chances of winning the game (I'm not going to say they WOULD'VE won with those guys, but they would've been a positive). 

All in all, I hope they go 2-2 on the road trip, altho I think only Boston is what you could say is a relatively easy game (altho obviously not a given) so that might not be possible. If Joel can come back and play, it helps. If Brandon could play (which afaik, he isn't going on the trip) I think 2-2 would've been very likely.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> What the hell is up with Martell? Before the injury he was looking good and now he's not getting enough minutes or shots out there. I expect more out of him even though he's so young, I don't think he's getting much of an opportunity shooting so few shots. He needs to understand that he needs to be more aggressive offensively and to not only wait around the perimeter, he needs to slash more.


I heard on a pre-game show or on 1080 The Fan that it's his defense. He's missing assignments and isn't catching on as quickly as one would hope. That's the main reason Nate isn't playing him that much. So when he can't get into a rhythm, aggressiveness might only compound that.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

didn't sound like joel was making the trip


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Hap said:


> Even with a 1-4 record (going into the game) this IS the Mavs we're talking about. The team didn't give up against them. One of the reasons they lost tonight, imho, was their youth. If Joel and Brandon play, I think it improves their chances of winning the game (I'm not going to say they WOULD'VE won with those guys, but they would've been a positive).


Roy's defense was missed tonight. Big time. Not sure Joel's inside presence would have made a huuuge difference, because the Mavs were hot from outside and didn't do too much on the offensive glass.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> that reb and shot was art


Absolutely. It was like Sheed in his prime but better. Still can't believe this kid who's not practiced really with the team, doesn't know the offense, still isn't 100% game-shape wise, AND playing in his first game against guys like Dirk and Dampier, put in better numbers in less than 20 minutes than Magloire and Joel have.

Amazing. Plus he's not a stiff, meaning he can guard those guys like Garnett, Duncan, Dirk out on the perimeter and in the paint.

Now, if we can just get Roy back, and get Martell's confidence back, we WILL be a solid team. This year. Great, no, but definately not a bottom feeder, and possibly in the playoffs.

My only real concern is what these guys are doing, or rather not doing, before the games to come out so cold and half asleep. I mean seriously, this game it litterally looked like guys were physically numb like they got pulled out of a deep sleep and tossed onto the basketball court. Martell could barely hold onto the ball on passes and couldn't seem to square up for his shots, Jack was stumbling and fumbling and looked like he couldn't keep his eyes open, Zach looked like he was just taking a lazy Sunday afternoon stroll through the park without a care in the world...

Only guy who was ready to play at the start was Ime, and the day you have to put the full load on him is the day you belong in a highschool gym playing against kids.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Blazers played very well against the defending WC champions - who were eagerly looking for wins after starting the season out horribly. With the way Portland has been playing lately, I'm not really satisfied with losses, but as other folks have said, Aldridge's solid first game, Jarred Jack gains in confidence, and the way the team was able to put almost 100 points on the board when Randolph "only" put up 20 is very encouraging. Hopefully, McMillan can come up with some kind of a scheme to keep the Blazers from falling into deep holes early on. That seems like their biggest problem these days.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

blazers2285 said:


> Nate needs to learn that zach and jamal cannot play together he wonders why we fall apart. mags clogsthe lane it dosen't work we need to go samll travis should be on nowitski itslike nate hust dosen't see it. Its not gonna work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well, Nate just said he doesn't like playing Zach and Jamal together...

barfo


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Dickau just flat out disgusted me tonight. He played worse then anybody I've ever seen. Ugh he just pisses me off, and he's so cocky in person as well.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

sucks to lose,but we were shorthanded again...once healthy we will make a playoff push. Our rookies are nba ready and still have room to grow. If I were Nate, i'd go with LaRidge/Zbo/Webster/Roy(when healthy)/Jack...with Dixon,Outlaw,Ime,Joel off the bench. Shorten the rotation and let that starting 5 gel,because that could be our SL for years and years to come and its a very pretty sight. LA looked like sheed with that turn around shot...beautiful.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

The biggest difference between Aldridge and 'Sheed is that Aldridge isn't afraid to mix it up and get down low (as evidenced by his rebounds tonight).

I think I speak for most of Blazer Nation when I say that I spent many hours :banghead: after 'Sheed would chuck up horrible outside shot after horrible outside shot.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Thoughts on the game:

- *Jack*: It's easy to criticize the guy, but he brings intensity on both ends of the floor. I think we'll look back on this stretch of the season without Roy and view it as a huge positive for Jarret Jack. Remember the look on his face when Roy stayed in at PG at the end of the game? When Roy comes back, there will no longer be any doubt that this is Jack's team to run. Specifically tonight, I saw a more aggressive Jack with an ability to draw fouls and get to the free throw line. I know he had the benefit of the free throw game at the end of the game, but ended up 12-12 from the charity stripe. Not bad. Add 10 assists and 4 steals (should've been five with the way the refs called that last one). I think that makes him the steals leader among point guards. Awesome.

- *Ime*: Early in the first, things were _ugly_. Udoka saw what was going on and looked for his shot. I like that. The guy assesses the situation and contributes what is needed. Because of htis, Nate can't help but keep him at the top of the rotation. He's too valuable.

- *Aldridge:*: What more can you say about this guy? It's his first freaking NBA game, he's not even completely match fit (hasn't had a full contact practice with the team yet), and he's already outperforming Jamaal Magloire. You look at him and you can just see it. He knows where to be when the ball bounces off the rim. 6 offensive rebounds in _19 minutes? *Are you kidding me?*_ I know Dallas isn't one of the top rebounding teams in the league, but you have to be extremely pleased with LA's ability to find the ball. 

Another way this knack for being in the right place will help: Zach Randolph. Magloire is used to topping the charts in minutes played as a C, so he's not familiar with playing second fiddle to another banger down low. But Aldridge is. LA played second fiddle to PJ Tucker last year and can defend post players when they play on the perimeter because he can move like a guard. That's versitility.

Once LA has a few games/team practices under his belt, don't be surprised if the coaching staff goes to LA when Zach is in the game. When you think about it, Aldridge is already Portland's best offensive center. Przybilla and Magloire are tenuous options at best, and LaFrentz is more of a perimeter player than a guy who can craft moves on the low block. When everyone gets back healthy, I wouldn't be surprised if management began looking to move Magloire (if they haven't already). Move Magloire for a pick/dirty laundry and play the LaLa brothers together off the bench. That'll give Portland some punch (Raef from 3, LA down low) when Randolph leaves the game.

- *Dixon*: I'm still hesitant about the volume of shots Dixon has been taking, but I'll give him a pass because Roy is out and Webster is the only other guy at his position. I certainly don't mind his aggression when the team is ice cold, that's for sure. He's hitting his shots right now, and whenever he's doing that, it's hard to dislike him. The one problem I had with him tonight was his error in jacking a trey when the game was still on the line. I felt like Portland could have gone to Zach down low and gotten a higher percentage shot. With the miss, the game was all but over.

- *Outlaw*: If the Hornets game was a night where Outlaw was 'on', I hope this is a game where Outlaw could be considered 'off'. He put up a quiet 9 points on 3-6 shooting and did pretty much everything Portland asked of him. His length really put the Mavericks in a spot during the 4th quarter, and I was sad to see Nate go with Ime instead (even though I knew it was a good move). It's early, but I can see Outlaw begin to put it together mentally. He's keeping focus for longer stretches. Keep it up TLaw.

*Overall:* A very encouraging performance. I hate to see this team bury itself early, but their determination and inability to quit is a refreshing change from last year. Looking at this matchup on paper, Portland gets sacked, and yet there was a brief period in the fourth where Portland really had Dallas nervous. Add in the Aldridge debut, and this game should only be viewed as a smashing success. 

Let's hope they can keep up the energy and no-quit attitude on their first road trip of the season!


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Jarret Jack has so much heart, he played like a mad man down the stretch. This is a guy who will be HUGE in a year or two when we're in the postseason, he just seems like a clutch refuse to lose performer.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Blazer Freak said:


> Dickau just flat out disgusted me tonight. He played worse then anybody I've ever seen. Ugh he just pisses me off, and he's so cocky in person as well.


I would beg to differ on the personality of Dickau since I work close in the Rose Garden. I do think however he did too much ball handling tonight and not enough passing. He spends too much time on his dribbling and doesn't do enough offensive attackifness - and when he does he tries to find that one person underneath the basket. Jarret Jack seems to set things up better. However, when Dickau is hot on his "3" with 2 threes or more the coach tends to pull him out either in the 3rd or 4th. When a player is hot, he should keep him in.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Nate Dogg said:


> I would beg to differ on the personality of Dickau since I work close in the Rose Garden. I do think however he did too much ball handling tonight and not enough passing.


Our announcers pointed out his desire to pattern his game after Nash - you could see that in the way he kept his dribble alive while facilitating the offense...

...aka ballhogging.


----------



## xray (Feb 21, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Thoughts on the game:


Good assessment. You guys definitely have serious potential - we all hope to see good things after some bumpy years there. :clap:


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Zbo would hve had about 35 last night . everytime he touched the ball they double him as soon as he got it . I mean we didnt play dirk like that .


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Attention....Calling Zags and Oil can....Anything you two would like to say about mr. Softridge after he almost equaled A_am Morrison's rebounding output for the season in one game???


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Attention....Calling Zags and Oil can....Anything you two would like to say about mr. Softridge after he almost equaled A_am Morrison's rebounding output for the season in one game???


He's a 6'11" post, I would expect him to be able to rebound.

I was pleased by the way he played.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Trust me when Jack plays poorly no one wants to correct it more than Jack! This is the rebirth of Terry Porter for the Blazers plus some size. This could be the 2006 version of Porter and Drexler with Jack and Roy.

Both these kids have monster heart, and that must make every true Blazer fan overjoyed, how long has it been since we could say that about this team? Throw in Aldridge and we've got a great hub! :banana:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> I would beg to differ on the personality of Dickau since I work close in the Rose Garden. I do think however he did too much ball handling tonight and not enough passing. He spends too much time on his dribbling and doesn't do enough offensive attackifness - and when he does he tries to find that one person underneath the basket. Jarret Jack seems to set things up better. However, when Dickau is hot on his "3" with 2 threes or more the coach tends to pull him out either in the 3rd or 4th. When a player is hot, he should keep him in.


Well everytime I have met him and kind of observed him he has seemed to be very cocky. For instance, I worked Nate's BBall camp this summer and Dickau shook my hand but wasnt even looking at me and didn't give me the time of day.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Well everytime I have met him and kind of observed him he has seemed to be very cocky. For instance, I worked Nate's BBall camp this summer and Dickau shook my hand but wasnt even looking at me and didn't give me the time of day.


He lived right around me and we went to h.s. together, yea he's a cocky punk.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

YardApe said:


> Trust me when Jack plays poorly no one wants to correct it more than Jack! *This is the rebirth of Terry Porter for the Blazers plus some size*. This could be the 2006 version of Porter and Drexler with Jack and Roy.
> 
> Both these kids have monster heart, and that must make every true Blazer fan overjoyed, how long has it been since we could say that about this team? Throw in Aldridge and we've got a great hub! :banana:


TP wasn't small. He's as big if not bigger than Jack. He's 6'3" and could back his man down if need be.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Well everytime I have met him and kind of observed him he has seemed to be very cocky. For instance, I worked Nate's BBall camp this summer and Dickau shook my hand but wasnt even looking at me and didn't give me the time of day.


A good friend of mine is dating Dickau's wife's younger sister Megan and I have talked with the him quite a bit. At first he came across as arrogant, but he's one of those people that the more you get to know him the more friendly he becomes. He's a very family oriented person and talks a lot about his strong christian values.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

Because someone with strong christian values automatically equates to a good person? You may be right about Dickau, that he is a lot better once you get to know him, but don't use that tired description of 'christian values' to prove a point. It proves nothing.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

porkchopexpress said:


> Because someone with strong christian values automatically equates to a good person? You may be right about Dickau, that he is a lot better once you get to know him, but don't use that tired description of 'christian values' to prove a point. It proves nothing.


Well, heck! I'll bite.

List Xian values. Then decide whether adhering to those values would improve someone or not.

Lessee... 



> The term Christian values usually refers to values the speaker feels represent those found in the teachings of Christ as described in parts of the United States.
> 
> The biblical teachings of Christ include
> 
> ...



Assuming that one adheres to these values, would it make you a better person or not?

iWatas


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> Well, heck! I'll bite.
> 
> List Xian values. Then decide whether adhering to those values would improve someone or not.
> 
> ...




Well, actually living your life according to 'Christian Values' is a lot different then what is generally meant when someone uses that phrase. In our country, the terms 'Good Christian' (which I know wasn't stated in the original post) and 'Christian Values' gets thrown around way too much. All too often when someone is defending someone else's character, they throw out the 'Good Christian' phrase, like what was done with Dickau. By saying that he talks about his strong Christain values means nothing. I'm sure that guy (I'm drawing a blank on his name right now) who got busted for buying meth and a hiring a male prostitute talked a lot (understatment of the century) about good Christian values. Did that make him a good person? Obviously it did not. 

I am not in anyway saying that Dickau isn't a good guy. I've never met him. Heck, I've only seen him play a handful of times. But stating that he is a good guy because of his talk of good Christian values is a joke. Instead, mention what he does for his community, or how he interacts with people. Giving examples, I'm sure there are many, of how he is a good person is a much more affective way of defending him. 

Also, the terms themselves are a slap in the face to all of the non Christians who are on the board. If the reason for him being a good person is that he has/talks about strong Christian values, then doesn't that allude to the fact that non Christians are not as good, because a non Christian cannot carry the title of 'Good Christian' and don't have 'strong Christian values'?

Don't take this as a rant against Christianity. This in no way was supposed to be an attack on anyone here that may be Christian. I just don't see the point in using someones religious beliefs as an argument for ones morality.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's a very family oriented person and talks a lot about his strong christian values.


Haggard, cough cough.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

porkchopexpress said:


> Because someone with strong christian values automatically equates to a good person? You may be right about Dickau, that he is a lot better once you get to know him, but don't use that tired description of 'christian values' to prove a point. It proves nothing.


What was I trying to prove?

I didn't say he was a good person _because_ he had strong christian values, I just simply said he has christian values.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> What was I trying to prove?
> 
> I didn't say he was a good person _because_ he had strong christian values, I just simply said he has christian values.



You were defending him, with that as your argument/proof.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

porkchopexpress said:


> Also, the terms themselves are a slap in the face to all of the non Christians who are on the board. If the reason for him being a good person is that he has/talks about strong Christian values, then doesn't that allude to the fact that non Christians are not as good, because a non Christian cannot carry the title of 'Good Christian' and don't have 'strong Christian values'?


Not at all. Nobody said you *had* to be an Xian to be good? They just said that DD is good because he has Xian values.

Nobody here is saying there is only way to be good.

BTW, I don't see it as a slap in the face. I am most definitely *not* an Xian. But I recognize that there is no lasting morality outside of religion. Without firm and immutable principles, absolutely anything becomes justifiable and even admirable. IMMHO, people who are G-d fearing Xians or Jews or Quakers or Mormons or... tend to be a cut above the average atheist. Atheists can be good or bad, but they don't try to improve themselves in part by submitting to someone else's time-tested criteria. They make up their own ideas, and justify them as they see fit.

But all of this is about the general trends: DD may well, of course, be an utter butthead. :biggrin: 

iWatas


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> Not at all. Nobody said you *had* to be an Xian to be good? They just said that DD is good because he has Xian values.
> 
> Nobody here is saying there is only way to be good.
> 
> ...


Well, considering this now has nothing to do with the Blazers, or even basketball, I'll drop my argument. I know that no one explicitly stated that only Christians are good, that is just how the statement came across to me.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Iwatas said:


> Not at all. Nobody said you *had* to be an Xian to be good? They just said that DD is good because he has Xian values.
> 
> Nobody here is saying there is only way to be good.
> 
> ...


What a load. You don't have to be religious to know if you are rationalizing something. Both religious and non religious people do it and to say one does it more than another is just being a bigot.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

porkchopexpress said:


> Also, the terms themselves are a slap in the face to all of the non Christians who are on the board. If the reason for him being a good person is that he has/talks about strong Christian values, then doesn't that allude to the fact that non Christians are not as good, because a non Christian cannot carry the title of 'Good Christian' and don't have 'strong Christian values'?


Man, give it a rest. What he said in his post is by no means a slap in the face to all non Christians on the board. Only those who like to find something to complain about.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

baler said:


> Man, give it a rest. What he said in his post is by no means a slap in the face to all non Christians on the board. Only those who like to find something to complain about.


I did not say his use of the words, I said the words themselves. It is like how every politician ends a speach with God bless America. I know they do not mean harm, but why do they have to shove their religious views upon me. 

Anyways, I already said that I would drop it, so you'll hear no more from me on this matter.


GO BLAZERS!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

porkchopexpress said:


> You were defending him, with that as your argument/proof.


I wasn't defending him. I was simply giving my impression of him. I certainly don't think that someone is good just because they claim them self a christian. I'm a pretty secular person, so that was far from my intention. I was just stating thats how Dickau's is.


----------

