# Impressions from the game



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK everyone who went feel free to post their impressions here....

Telfair
This kid is our starting PG, he completely sets the tempo of the game, still doesn't shoot well but made decent decisions with the ball 12 pts and 10 asists 4 to...not a horrid Ratio.

Martell
He will be starting by Jan 1 if not sooner. His shots weren't falling tonight but they were soft and online, never forced looking. Wasn't intimidated by having to Guard Ray Allen. I loved how he kept after the ball on the boards. Needs to look to push the ball a little himself insteda of relying on trying to get it to the PG

Travis
Looks a little lost in the shuffle played decent but wasn't an impact player tonight, needs more time to understand the offense

Jack
I was really impressed wiht Jack, what I saw tonight leads me to believe that he really won't push Sebastian for the starters gig too much, but will be either a top notch backup or an excellent trade piece. Very impressive.

Miles
I think Miles is the guy we will get used to looking at box scores and saying "Huh, didn't seem like he did all that" WIll put up goood numbers quietly

Zach
Much much farther along than I expected. Looked really good, needs to make his moves a little quicker, but I said that about him last year too.

Joel
Even though he grabbed a lot of boards, didn't really impress me too much maybe seemed like he wasn't feeling good or something.

Smith
I think Smith should be our starting 2 until Martel is truely ready to take over...which IMO could be for the season opener. I liked Smiths game, the shots weren't falling but he played well, had a great block.

Ruben
Still scasres the crap our of me when he has the balls in his hands. Didn't seem to much of a factor tonight

Theo
Was Theo, but rebounded a little better than usual

Juan 
Didn't impress me with his play but I did notice him directing traffic a little when players were out of position for the called play. May be a pretty good contibutor off the bench

Viktor
Not enough PT to say

Sam
Won't be here doesn't matter

Seung jin- Sergey and Steve 
DNP...What I saw of Blakes competitors though makes me question the judgement to bring him in at all.

I wouldn't put a ton of stock in the results the Sonics main players (Shard, Ray and Ridnour) didn't play much in the 2nd half.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

Much appreciated.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Thanks for the recap Schilly for those of us that are grounded!


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I know this was Antonio Harvey's first game, but dam it was painful to listen to him.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW I want to point out that when I saw Juan directing the traffic he did not have the ball but was on the weakside pointing out to another player (Zach) where he needed to be

I also want to point out that no Seattle Starter played more than 20 minutes tonight.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> BTW I want to point out that when I saw Juan directing the traffic he did not have the ball but was on the weakside pointing out to another player (Zach) where he needed to be
> 
> I also want to point out that no Seattle Starter played more than 20 minutes tonight.


Okay, since no one else is asking............I'll ask.............How much were the hotdogs and were they better or worse than last year? 

Maybe Juan is going to be that guy that really isn't a starter, but a sixth or seventh man that is a team leader. Sounds like Nate played his guys that he really wants to look at tonight. I wonder what game two's lineup is going to look like. :whoknows:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Okay, since no one else is asking............I'll ask.............How much were the hotdogs and were they better or worse than last year?
> 
> Maybe Juan is going to be that guy that really isn't a starter, but a sixth or seventh man that is a team leader. Sounds like Nate played his guys that he really wants to look at tonight. I wonder what game two's lineup is going to look like. :whoknows:


Had Nachos they were $5.00 btw don't ever park in the garage under what used to be Cucin cucina $20!!!


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Had Nachos they were $5.00 btw don't ever park in the garage under what used to be Cucin cucina $20!!!


Not a bad price for Nachos or was that the hot dogs? I need to be more like Hap and stick it to the man by wearing a large coat with big pockets! 

Yeah, I made the mistake of parking under Cucina Cucina once..............once!


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Had Nachos they were $5.00 btw don't ever park in the garage under what used to be Cucin cucina $20!!!


At least you can count on a parking spot there.

The hot dogs are about the same as last year IMO, and $4.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Not a bad price for Nachos or was that the hot dogs? I need to be more like Hap and stick it to the man by wearing a large coat with big pockets!
> 
> Yeah, I made the mistake of parking under Cucina Cucina once..............once!


hey, I ain't paying 5 bucks for watered down coke, when I can buy a 20 ounce can of Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper at Freds for 1.34

and yes, I did that tonite, and I'll do it the next night I go too. 

now if I can just smuggle in a bbq and some kosher dogs...


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Just a few random thoughts ...

Telfair led the break twice in the 4th quarter and got the crowd PUMPED. He's unpredictable in the open court and is a really fun player to watch.

The Blazers played some stingy defense tonight and showed alot of hustle. They weren't mailing it in and played TOUGH, for the most part. They won the battle of the boards - 48-37, which is a good sign.

The offense seemed decidedly different tonight than it did last season. The guys were definitely working the kinks out (hence the ugly play at times), but overall, it seemed like there were more set plays and communication on offense htis year.

Telfair and Jack played together in the 4th, and the lack of size didn't hurt our backcourt too badly. They actually played pretty well together, and having the contrasting styles could create fits for opponents if Nate implements the scheme more often.

Martell made his first ever attempt but didn't contribute much beyond that. Still, he has a good-looking shot and looks like he'll contribute by the All-Star break in some capacity.

There are plenty more, but I have to get up early for work tomorrow.

One last thing, though. All night long, coming out of timeouts, the Sonics were out and in positon, whereas the refs had to blow their whistles to break up the Blazers and get them out of the huddle. This didn't happen once or twice, but rather ... all night long. Just kind of interesting.

Oh yeah - they got rid of the mini screens that wrapped around the arena just above the 200-level. These screens usually had the scores of other games, stats, information and more, but they're not there anymore! Kinda weird.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BTW not a single headband on either squad.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> hey, I ain't paying 5 bucks for watered down coke, when I can buy a 20 ounce can of Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper at Freds for 1.34
> 
> and yes, I did that tonite, and I'll do it the next night I go too.
> 
> now if I can just smuggle in a bbq and some kosher dogs...


Hap, I think that we're going to need a guy on the inside to help us out with that. My brother's, uncle's, sister who happens to be my mom knows a guy that knows a guy that talks with the animals.............but that is another story for another time. I wonder if we could make it in the front door smelling like we just went through McDonal's drive thru? :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> Oh yeah - they got rid of the mini screens that wrapped around the arena just above the 200-level. These screens usually had the scores of other games, stats, information and more, but they're not there anymore! Kinda weird.


they're replacing those and the rolling ads, with a new system soon.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Schilly said:


> BTW not a single headband on either squad.


yeah, I didn't think that would happen, lol.

for those who went, any SOnics comments?? hehe. Obviously our starters didn't play much, but I'm curious about our baby centers, Swifty & Petro? any first hand impressions? Strengths, weakness(obviously rebounding, lol), any comments?? much appreciated!


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

myELFboy said:


> yeah, I didn't think that would happen, lol.
> 
> for those who went, any SOnics comments?? hehe. Obviously our starters didn't play much, but I'm curious about our baby centers, Swifty & Petro? any first hand impressions? Strengths, weakness(obviously rebounding, lol), any comments?? much appreciated!


Petro is a goon.:biggrin: Not really, but I remember one or two pretty hard fouls from him. Not much else stuck out about them.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Tonight's Starting Lineup:

PG: Telfair
SG: Smith
SF: Patterson
PF: Miles
C: Przybilla

General Thoughts:

1. Neither PG (Telfair or Jack) ran the offense particularly well in the 1st half. Telfair looked like he was trying too hard. Jack looked a little nervous / intimidated. Both seemed to come out of it in the 2nd half however, and by the time it was over I was thinking what a blessing it will be for us to have both of 'em. I agree with Schilly that Jack is really the perfect backup for Telfair, and that that's exactly what he is for now.

2. Both teams played really intense defense tonight. If you like defensive basketball, this was a great game to witness.

3. I didn't see the Blazers' running many set plays at the offensive end, especially in the 1st half. Maybe it was the Sonic's defense disrupting what the Blazers were trying to do, but a lot of the 1st half reminded me of the way the Blazers looked with Damon & Cheeks running things. I really hope they get better at running set plays over time. But it's nice to know we have talent to make something out of nothing when opponents are able to disrupt our plays like the Sonics seemed to tonight.

4. I like the young talent the Sonics have up and down their roster, too. I don't think they'll drop off too much from last season. Rid, Ray, Shard, Rad, Evans, Murray, Wilkins, Scales, Cleaves, Collison, Swift, Moore, Fortson... it just goes on and on. Reggie Evans is still a punk.

5. We've got plenty of guys who aren't afraid to take the big shot. Now we just need 'em all to become reliable at it.

Player Observations:

Telfair - Looked too amped up in the 1st half. Ran the O better in the 2nd half after calming down a bit. Knocked down some big shots late in the game, but overall his FG% didn't look much different from last season (despite supposedly shooting 1000 shots a day over the off-season). I'll be expecting more from him early in the reg season. Made some terrific passes and played tougher man-on defense than I remember seeing from him last season.

Jack - I really like this kid. Hit 2 HUGE back-to-back threes late in the game. Not afraid to take the big shot. Clearly nervous early on, but I think he'll come around.

Dixon - Didn't get many minutes tonight, or didn't do much with them. Either way, not much to say about him other than he looked intense.

Smith - I was skeptical before the game, but he is the real deal... at least until Webster is ready to start. Smith didn't shoot particularly well tonight (none of the Blazers except Zach shot well), but he did everything else REALLY well. Had a MONSTER "from out of nowhere" block, in the 2nd quarter I think. Very aggressive at both ends of the court.

Webster - Clearly the crowd favorite. Hit his first NBA jumper off the baseline curl on the right side late in the 1st quarter.... then pretty much went flat, offensively, after that until mid-way through the 4th. Took a nice behind-the-back pass from Bassy for a slam which brought the crowd to its feet. Bounced a stolen ball off Telfair's back and out-of-bounds on a break.

Blake - DNP. Was putting the ball in regularly during pre-game warmups, though.

Monia - DNP. Looked lost / intimidated during pre-game warmups. Interesting that Viktor didn't really hang with him during warmups.

Patterson - (Relatively) quiet game tonight. Looked like he was making a concerted effort to play within Nate's system. Still takes shots he has no business taking (and still surprisingly makes some of 'em). Still has oven mitts on when he tries to drive through traffic to the hoop.

Outlaw - The crowd seemed like it really wanted to cheer for the kid, but he didn't give us much opportunity tonight. Took a beautiful alley-oop from Telfair for a jam late in the game. Other than that, about the best I can say about him was that he played some pretty good defense on Lewis / Wilkins.

Khryapa - Only got a few minutes, but he was a defensive dynamo during that time.

Miles - Dude looks like he's put on 10-15 pounds over the summer. Played a pretty quiet game tonight. Shot the ball more than he passed it when it came to him, but unfortunately wasn't hitting much better than most of his team-mates.

Zach - Very quiet in the 1st half. In fact, he looked like he was really struggling out there (feet dragging, head hanging) by the end of the 1st half. Not many plays run for him at all. Then he completely turned it around in the 2nd half. Seemed like everything he threw up went in. I think he's the one who shot 1000 shots a day over the off-season.

Clancy - Only got a few minutes. Nothing spectacular. Would have liked to see him and Fortson go at it (Fortson sat out tonight).

Joel - I'm so glad he's still with us this season. Had 2 blocks on one Sonics posession tonight, and several blocks on the night (haven't checked the box-score yet). Not much to contribute offensively, though.

Theo - Kinda a mirror image of Joel tonight, I thought.

Ha - DNP. I was really looking forward to seeing him play, too. Watching him during warmups gave me the impression that he's a little more coordinated and a litte more relaxed than I remember him being at the end of last season.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

wastro said:


> Oh yeah - they got rid of the mini screens that wrapped around the arena just above the 200-level. These screens usually had the scores of other games, stats, information and more, but they're not there anymore! Kinda weird.


They're getting ready to put in one of those huge all-the-way-around-the-arena LED rings as part of the arena upgrade package.

PBF


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> They're getting ready to put in one of those huge all-the-way-around-the-arena LED rings as part of the arena upgrade package.
> 
> PBF


That sucks.

Those things are an eye-sour.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

gambitnut said:


> Petro is a goon.:biggrin: Not really, but I remember one or two pretty hard fouls from him. Not much else stuck out about them.


oh....well, that's too bad.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Might as well add my random thoughts on the team tonight... First of all, the team played very well and did not disapoint in my excitment to see the new style. The guys rebounded relentlessly, Seattle has no inside presence but impressing none the less. We could be in trouble if Zach or Darius have an off night on the offensive end. Webster looked like he is our 3rd option on offense, already. Defense, rebounding and taking care of the ball will games this year as we won't be offensive dualing with anyone short of the Bobcats, for sure. Of note, Jack/Telfair backcourt can and should work well. On the postgame show, Coach Nate mentioned he was impressed with Jack and mentioned an interest in playing the two guys together. 

Telfair - Stud, utter stud. He got out and ran but still made good decisions when to hold it back to set up the offense. His upper body looks thick, don't recall Bassy being so big last season. Passed the ball well, obviously, should have had 5+ additional assists. Pryz, Ruben..etc got caught off guard multiple times when he threaded a pass underneath the rim while they were busy bodying up. All over the place on defense.

Webster - I have a comparison: Ray Allen. He is silky smooth, above average athlete, good release and not afraid to stroke it. At one point, he looked pretty overwhelmed but nothing unexpected, just funny to see from an nba guy. Still, he looked head and shoulders above Outlaw in terms of understanding the offense. Despite that, he was far too often stagnating all too close next to Telfair and Bassy waved him off several times. Once he learns how to cut, use picks and make plays in the half court set, he could be a 25ppg type guy. Agree that he will be starting by the AS break. Hallelujah for Nash on this pick! :cheers: 

Smith - Hustle guy, not overly talented but he made his presence felt. Stroked a few threes, played good defense and most importantly, competed out there. Should be around for a few years. Eventually as a spark plug off the bench. Viktor and Smith will be a nice 2/3 defensive combo, off the bench. 

Miles - Like Schilly said, he was barely noticable on the floor but ended up with a decent line. Attempted and made several jumpers from the top of the key area. Unfortunately, Z-Bo still has a better jumper, by far. He played next to none in the second half, so it seemed. Can't recall a reason why he might have been pulled, maybe Nate wanted to see more of Travis/Smith. Not a big fan of Darius but he is/will be our #2/#1a guy on offense.

Z-Bo - He looked trim and thin. Interestingly enough, he didn't seem to be in much pain and actually got more into the flow as the game wore on. Still right in the mix for every rebound and his jumpers were swishing the bottom all the way to the inside of the three-point line. 

Jack - Crowd favorite tonight(Or Webster). He played awesome and looks to be a great yin to Bassys yang. Pressure defense all the way up the floor, pocking and prodding at the ball almost non-stop, much better three point shot then expected. Played somewhat similar to what one might have expected from Nate when he was an NBA'er. Tough nosed, looks and plays big, had no trouble defending Wilkins or Scales. 

Seattle players - Eh. Cleaves, Scales and other scrubs played most of the second half. Ray Allen looked good, Lewis didn't do jack and Ridnour was decent. The two stiff centers looked AWFUL. Man! Petro had trouble before he could even get into the game, couldn't figure out how to get his snap off warm ups off from the sideline! :clap: Swift at least blended in out there. 

Nice to say, Basketball is officially in session folks!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

HearToTemptYou said:


> Those things are an eye-sour.


I'm going to be trying to pucker my eye for the rest of the week now...

Ed O.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I'm going to be trying to pucker my eye for the rest of the week now...
> 
> Ed O.



:rofl:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> hey, I ain't paying 5 bucks for watered down coke, when I can buy a 20 ounce can of Diet Cherry Vanilla Dr Pepper at Freds for 1.34


I don't blame ya, I bought a case of that stuff the other day, good stuff!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HOWIE said:


> Okay, since no one else is asking............I'll ask.............How much were the hotdogs and were they better or worse than last year?
> 
> Maybe Juan is going to be that guy that really isn't a starter, but a sixth or seventh man that is a team leader. Sounds like Nate played his guys that he really wants to look at tonight. I wonder what game two's lineup is going to look like. :whoknows:



The "Blazer dogs" are $4 dollars again this year and they are still extremely long and skinny and green....Not a very tastey dog for professional sports venue standards...

I personally miss the old Tony Roma's they had....The baked potatoe soup was excellent...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Couple notes from the game....

I was able to sit behind the bench for the second half of the game and it was exciting to see how enthusiastic and intense Nate, Demopolis, Monty Williams and Lucas were considering it was a preseason game....They were constantly harping at the players to get into position. Lucas spent a lot of time on the bench talking and teaching Zach, Darius and Joel and they seemed to be very interested and soaking in the information....Demopolis really impressed me as a coach, he's a really fiery guy......During a couple of the timeouts Monty Williams was drawing up the plays....


Paul Allen seemed to really be into the game considering it was a preseason game....After the game he was high fiving the fans as he was walking back toward the locker room area to catch his private bus..Any kind of emotion or anything like that from Allen is something I have rarely seen, especially not in a exhibition game....


It seemed like Dixon was pretty disappointed with his minutes tonight and I heard him complaining about it....Not a good sign, but I'm pretty sure him, Viktor, Blake, Monia, Ha and the other guys will get more playing time against Denver on Saturday...I think he is trying to mix up different kind of rotations to see what works and so on, but tonight I think he went with the stronger rotation because he wanted to beat his old team...

Overall it was nice to get a win from a young team who has only had around a week to learn new plays from a new coach...Nate is going to be a great coach for these youngins I can already tell....


Oh and my new favorite players wife is Steve Blake's......Holy begeezies, she is foxy little blondie!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> The "Blazer dogs" are $4 dollars again this year and they are still extremely long and skinny and green....Not a very tastey dog for professional sports venue standards...
> 
> I personally miss the old Tony Roma's they had....The baked potatoe soup was excellent...



That reminds me of a business idea I had a few years ago. I would set up a high end hot dog stand over across the street at the max station, and call it "Sneak a Dog". I would charge half the amount for a superior hot dog, and it would come in a wrapper which looked like the Blazer hot dog wrapper so you could sneak it into the game. :clap:


----------



## Victory thru Synergy (Aug 21, 2005)

It is so good to have Blazer basketball with us once again - even if it is just the pre-season. Although I didn't have the opportunity to see the game, from what I heard and have read, it was a pretty good game - especially, since it was the first game this team has played against a real opponent and a game that the Blazers won. 
But I have some concerns. Given the Sonic - Blazer rivalry, I have to wonder, since Allen and Lewis didn't play in the second half, did the Sonics really try their hardest to win, or did they tank it so they could look at their other players while at the same time give us a false sense of security? 
Also, as in all games, there were some good things, some bad things, and some ugly things. The good things were: the Blazers played hard and scrapped at both ends of the court all game long, the Blazers out rebounded the Sonics 48 - 37, got more assists 17 - 13 and Zach appears to be back. I am looking forward to much more of this as the season moves forward.
The bad things were: 19 turnovers and some players seeming to be out of position or looking lost at times. This, I believe, will improve as time goes on.
But my real concern is over the ugliness of the low shooting percentage by Telfair (3-14), Jack (3-10), Webster (3-12), Miles (4-12) and Pryzbilla (1-6). I will chalk these stats up to "first game jitters". But I would feel much better if the shooting percentages were just a little higher.

All in all, though, thanks for the win Blazers and keep up the good work.

:cheers:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> .....Oh and my new favorite players wife is Steve Blake's......Holy begeezies, she is foxy little blondie!


Come on! Zagsfan20!! Where's the photo link?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My thoughts are as follows. 

Telfair - Can still get into the lane at will. Seemed to be a true leader as he was standing and waiving a towel every time Jack or anyone else did someo=thing good when Telfair was out. His shot looked decent, and would have had 5 more assists if Webster's shot was falling. Also played great full court defense.........Prognosis - Team starting pg and leader

Webster - I love the fact that he is a shooter. His shot wasn't falling, but you could tell that it will only be a matter of time before that changes. His outside presence alone opened up the middle on more than one occasion. Is lost on defense, but knows and is working to improve that it and I like that.........Prognosis - Team starting sg 

Miles - Didn't do anything spectacular, but it was the first game and I think he has bought into Nate and his system. There was one play where he was involved in a full court trap, stole the ball at mid court and drove it all by himself to the hoop for a basket and foul..........Prognosis - Team starting sf

Zach - In the first half he looked tentative, but in the second half really looked active. I was really impressed with how far along he has come. I was EXTREMEMLY annoyed at a few idiots that kept yelling for him to get on a treadmill. The guy looks to be in great shape, and was working hard......Prognosis - Team starting pf and team leader

Joel - I'm not sure where the negative thoughts about Joel are coming from, I thought he played well. He had 12 rebounds, and was on the floor a number of times chasing loose balls.......Prognosis - Team starting c

Jack - Played well. I don't think he ran the team quite as well as Telfair, but played well enough to get minutes this year.......Prognosis - Team rotation

Smith - I don't like sg's that don't shoot. We need someone that will stretch the defense. He'll be a nice roll player, but he isn't stating material IMO........Prognosis - team rotation

Outlaw - Travis didn't do anything extrodinarily good or bad. Seemed to be going over to the bench a lot for instruction. I'm not really sure Travis has the intelligence to realize his full potential as a player.........Prognosis - 6th or 7th man

Theo - Theo looked a lot better than last year I thought. He was more active and seemed to work hard, but Joel is just better........Prognosis - 6th or 7th man unless we are burried at the trade deadline, then I think he'll be traded. 

Krhyapa - Played hard, was on the floor diving for balls, and will be a fun guy to watch. Didn't do a ton at either end of the floor...............Prognosis 10th man 

Patterson - started at pf, and wasn't all that effective. Didn't do anything well............Prognosis -rotation and will be shopped

Dixon - Gets a whatever. He did ok, and I think he'll play. I don't think he should play ahead of Webster though. Too small to play sg, and not anywhere near Bassy's league at pg...........Prognosis - rotation

Clancy, Monya, Ha, Blake - None of them played, or played enough to make an impression. Clacy will be waived IMO. Ha has never impressed me, and Monya will end up in the NBADL. I was hoping to see Blake play, but I don't see him being better than Telfair , and Jack played so well I'd be shocked if Blake was any better. 


Team - I love how the team played. very stingy defense. Lots of full court trapping and pressing. They even moved on offense. That will take some getting used to.........Prognosis - 30 - 35 wins. They'll get a high draft pick next year and will make the playoffs.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

not having seen or heard the game, I think the single most encouraging thing I've read is that Telfair was playing good defense last night. last season it really felt like the more he saw Damon and NVE not even try, the worse he got. he just lived up to the poor examples set for him. 

this season he's playing for a coach who played alongside and coached possibly the greatest defensive PG of all time (Gary Payton in his prime), and he's got a defensive-minded backup PG just aching for playing time.

he's already got Steve Nash penetration and passing down pat. if he can add to that Greg Anthony-like defense and just average perimeter shooting, he could be a truly special player.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

ProudBFan said:


> They're getting ready to put in one of those huge all-the-way-around-the-arena LED rings as part of the arena upgrade package.
> 
> PBF


The scorers table signs will be all digital too... from what I've been told, it will be the first one its kind in the NBA.

Did the Sonic players and Nate talk at all before the game?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Did the Sonic players and Nate talk at all before the game?


I don't think so. It looked to me that Nate was very focused on getting his team ready to play.

PBF


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

theWanker said:


> not having seen or heard the game, I think the single most encouraging thing I've read is that Telfair was playing good defense last night. last season it really felt like the more he saw Damon and NVE not even try, the worse he got. he just lived up to the poor examples set for him.
> 
> this season he's playing for a coach who played alongside and coached possibly the greatest defensive PG of all time (Gary Payton in his prime), and he's got a defensive-minded backup PG just aching for playing time.
> 
> he's already got Steve Nash penetration and passing down pat. if he can add to that Greg Anthony-like defense and just average perimeter shooting, he could be a truly special player.


From what I saw last night, he's already made great strides with his defense. He was all over Ridnour & Brunson the whole game last night. Nate had to be happy with Bassy's defensive performance. And he nailed a few clutch jumpers late in the game, too, so there's hope there as well.

PBF


----------



## Flanders (Jul 24, 2004)

Impressive game by Telfair. He's going to be special.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Did the team get new "labels" for the scoreboard team name? It seemed to be a lot crisper and differentin color than the actual score area.

As for my "impression" (I don't remember if I posted):

Telfair: little dissapointed in his shot, but it's the 1st game. If by the 8th game he's still averaging 3-12, I'll be worried. Ran the team much better than anyone else. Still early (as in, no all star)..but it's still early. 

Miles: must've worked on his shot. He looks heavier, but with the baggy uniforms, he still looks funny. Still someone looks to be "there" out of obligation. I know it's pre-season and all..

Zach: Started off bad, but finished really good. Actually played how I think he's best suited. A 2nd banana.

Joel: Offensively sloppy (as was most of the team). Defensively good. 

Theo: same

Smith: Played good D, and missed most of his shots. Good block on someone, and guy has freakishly long arms.

the rest: Not enuogh minutes for me to remember.

As for some comments here..I noticed the team actually ran plays most of the game. I'm not sure what PBF was talking about there. Viktor, to me, WILL get minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if he's a 1st off the bench reserve (for whatever position he plays).


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> As for some comments here..I noticed the team actually ran plays most of the game. I'm not sure what PBF was talking about there.


I saw quite a bit of standing around. I saw some motion, too, but only a fraction of which I recognized as attempts to run set plays. I think the team is (very early) in the process of defining its offensive identity - of collecting its "library" of offensive sets, so to speak. I guess either I need to get better at recognizing when the team is running set plays, or the team needs to get better at running them (therefore making it more obvious when they are). But, again, the Sonics appeared to be disrupting things pretty well, so maybe that's got a lot to do with what I saw. That's about the best I can explain it.

PBF


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Ok, my turn for some thoughts.

First thing I noticed, it looked like Telfair and Miles were the co-captains tonight. They were the two that went to center court to meet with the refs and Allen/Lewis. Could be just because Zach didn't start, but interesting none the less.

Starting lineup was Przybilla (though they announced Theo), Patterson, Miles, Smith, Telfair.

Miles got into early foul trouble. So got taken out. He had a couple more fouls later, I think he ended with 4 fouls which is why he didn't play as much as I hoped. However, he was active defensively while out there and seemed confident in his shot (though didn't shoot real well). I don't think he took any 3's but he did take a good number of long twos.

Przybilla did his thing. Didn't score much but ended with a lot of rebounds (12?), a number of blocks and overall had an impact on the game. 

Smith didn't score a lot, but played some solid D. As has been mentioned he had one excellent block during the game where he came out of nowhere and swatted it with authority. 

Patterson didn't play much, so it's hard to say how effectivce he was at the 4.

Telfair showed (again) why we are all so high on him. Ended the game with a double-double. Seemed very hesitant to take the 3. His drive and dish's were excellent though.

Outlaw was a black hole on offense. He really needs to pass a bit more. Looked good on D, was really harassing whoever he was on.

Webster looked great out there. He was doing a great job of using screens to get open. Interestingly, it seemed to me that while he was in the game he got the ball in his hands quite a bit. It almost seemed like he was the primary offensive option while in. I don't know if it's just that he was doing a good job of getting open, or maybe Telfair was conciously trying to get him involved. I was encouraged though, he looked good. He definately had his share of rookie mistakes (tossing the ball off Telfair's back was one of the funnier ones). 

Jack played well. Hit a couple big important three's. Looked to pass before shoot (both his 3's were catch and shoots if I remember right). 

Theo played like we expect from him. I didn't notice him favoring his shoulder or anything, though he didn't play a lot of minutes. Rebounded well when he was in.

Dixon/Khryapa/Clancy all played very limited minutes. No real impression from them this game.

Zach looked great out there. It seemed like every shot he took in the second half went in. I also noticed him passing a lot more, as a matter of fact there was only one shot where I thought he really forced it (and that one went in so who am I to complain?). He rebounded well as usual. I didn't notice any adverse effects of the knee, which is a good sign. Hopefully it stands the test of time.

Ha/Monia/Blake DNP. I'm a little surprised to not see any Blake. I'm dissapointed not to see any Ha. I didn't expect Monia to get any time.

We obviously played our best players more then the Sonics. However, I'm still encouraged. Even when the Sonics had their starters in we played pretty well. 

Best play of the night was a break with Telfair with the ball on one wing, Outlaw on the opposite wing, and Webster running the middle. I loved seeing Webster point at Outlaw followed by a beautiful alley-oop to him. Brought the crowd to their feet.

Next best play was the Smith block in my opinion. However, I love seeing a good block, most people would probably pick the Telfair behind-the-back to Webster dunk.

Nate was obviously experimenting with lineups. Both Jack and Telfair shared some floor time together. The most bizzare lineup was for the final play. Sonics had called a timeout to set up a last play with 6 seconds left (we were up by 5, but they obviously just wanted to practice that type of play, makes sense). We had Telfair, Jack, Webster, Smith, and Randolph in. 4 Guards and a Forward. I can only guess maybe Nate was presuming they would go for a 3 pointer and wanted more mobile players to cover them? :whoknows: 

Overall I thought they played well. I'm encouraged by Zach's and Webster's play the most.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

Has anyone tracked down video of these spectacular plays I keep hearing about?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

One thing I want to point out about websters game last night....

At least 2 shots were situations where he got the ball with 2 seconds on the clock and not in great position to shoot. THe Sonics were giving him a ton of respect, not giving him a lot of room to shoot.

As for his shot itself, I didn't see a single shot of his that I didn't think it wasn't going in as it was in the air. Every shot hit the the rim online and soft, real soft. None of them clanged off the rim.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Well, I didn't stay as sober as I hoped, but here's what I took away from last night's pre season game vs Seattle.

Start with the guards:

Telfair- You've heard it all before and it's all pretty much true. Telfair might be the fastest player in the NBA right now. He can break down defenders at will. I really hope he learns to finish at the hoop a little better, and I'm sure he will. He doesn't need to shoot so many J's either, even though his jumper does look better. He's confident in his J, you can tell.

Webster- Flat out, he needs to start. His first shot of the game was a deep fade away right in Allen's grill. He nailed it. It was beautiful. Webster cooled off, but you can tell he's brimming with confidence. He's very big, too. I love this kid.....A LOT.

Outlaw- I really hope the Blazers don't give up on this kid. He didn't look amazing, but you can tell he's going to figure out Nate's system eventually. He's such an amazing athlete.

C. Smith- Didn't show me much. Looked timid. He's got decent size, but you can tell Webster is already a better player....at least last night he was.

Dixon- Bleh. He's tiny. I don't see this guy contributing much to this team. Unless he catches fire, he's a liability.

Jack- If his ankle stays strong he WILL get PT. He and Telfair played at the same time for a little while in the 2nd half. I really like this kid. He's big, strong, and mean. His jumper looked pretty good, but he will need to work on it.

Blake- Didn't play, wish he would have.

Monia- Didn't play, wish he would have.

Z-Bo- At first I thought he was definitely favoring his knee. He kept grabbing it. But after watching him for a while I think he was just adjusting his brace. He looked timid at first, but you could see his confidence in his knee growing with every minute played. His mid range jumper looked sweet in the 2nd half. I think he's going to be ok!

Miles- Ugly last night. He really loves his jumper, but I don't. I think he was just lazy. Homeboy needs to attack the rim and play pippen-like defense. There's no excuse for him not being an effective player. He's the most talented player on our team. I hate the fact that Miles's output might be the difference between Portland winning 20 games, or Portland winning 35-40 games. I have almost no faith in him.

Ruben- You know what you're getting from Ruben.

Kryapa- Can't remember much from him.

Clancy- Can't remember much from him.

Joel- It's very clear who the best Center is on this year's Trail Blazers. Joel is a BEAST. Rebounded great and swatted balls like a champ. I love how he doesn't leave his feet on pump fakes. His timing and leaping ability are impeccable. I love this guy!

Ratliff- Can't remember much from him. 

Ha- Didn't play, wish he would have.


One other observation- What a breath of fresh air it is without Damon and DA on this team. And what a great presence Nate has. The vibe and the energy of this team is just completely different now. Watching this team build confidence and grow together will be an entertaining process.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Something I failed to mention:

In the first half we ran out the shot clock quite a bit (or at least it seemed like we did). I'm not sure if this was a result of people not getting open or smothering defense. Whatever it was, it was ugly for a bit.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> One other observation- What a breath of fresh air it is without Damon and DA on this team. And what a great presence Nate has. The vibe and the energy of this team is just completely different now. Watching this team build confidence and grow together will be an entertaining process.


It's a nice feeling (in an odd way) to have players like Webster, Jack and Telfair, shoot bad knowing they can (and most likely will) get better...vs having players shoot that bad, knowing thats the best they'll get (DA, Damon).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> It's a nice feeling (in an odd way) to have players like Webster, Jack and Telfair, shoot bad knowing they can (and most likely will) get better...vs having players shoot that bad, knowing thats the best they'll get (DA, Damon).


You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season? I find that doubtful, but Damon's shot 35.9% for his career. Will Telfair crack 85% from the line? Maybe, but both DA and Damon have shot over that for their careers. Damon and DA weren't nearly as bad of shooters as some of us think... it was a matter of taking good shots as part of an offensive plan.

I don't see evidence that Telfair will be a better shooter than Damon or DA. "Confidence" in your shot is only good if a player's a good shooter. If Telfair shoots a bad percentage, I'd definitely prefer him to pass more and shoot less.

I agree that Webster will be a better shooter than DA or Damon, barring injuries, but I have my doubts about Jack.

In any case, after one preseason game it's too early to extrapolate anything, and I'm looking forward to what they can do moving forward.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season? I find that doubtful, but Damon's shot 35.9% for his career. Will Telfair crack 85% from the line? Maybe, but both DA and Damon have shot over that for their careers. Damon and DA weren't nearly as bad of shooters as some of us think... it was a matter of taking good shots as part of an offensive plan.
> 
> I don't see evidence that Telfair will be a better shooter than Damon or DA. "Confidence" in your shot is only good if a player's a good shooter. If Telfair shoots a bad percentage, I'd definitely prefer him to pass more and shoot less.
> 
> ...


If only we still had them...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

My impression is that Telfair still needs to work on his shot.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

I agree that Telfair needs to work on his shot, as do nearly all NBA players. However, he has great form on his shot and is able to finish at the rim, which is something that the Blazers have not had at the point since Rod Strickland was traded.

Bassy got hacked several times in the act of shooting, none of which were called by the refs. However, he was able to shrug it off with a smile and bounce back mentally. 

Dixon however, got into jawing with the ref after a bad call, after only two or three minutes, not what you would expect from a young veteran.

Jack looked very comfortable shooting, but got lazy with his dribble in the backcourt and got picked by Ridnour. Jack opened with a couple of nice drives to the hoop, with 2 assists in his first 30 seconds as a Blazer.

The offense did not show much flow, with several bailout jumpers as the clock ran down. I expect the offense to improve with time as the young guys get comfortable with running actual plays.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I really don't see any reason to believe Telfair won't develop to be a 35% three point shooter. he's not even 20, he works hard and he has to realize it's the main thing limiting his game now. he's just never had to work that hard at shooting in high school because he could penetrate and pass so much better. 

I'd guess that most starting NBA guards average around 35% from three. most of them don't come right out of the chute as rookies hitting at that clip. why should Telfair be different?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

theWanker said:


> I'd guess that most starting NBA guards average around 35% from three. most of them don't come right out of the chute as rookies hitting at that clip. why should Telfair be different?


Just a little data to backup this idea, John Stockton had a .182 3pt% his rookie year. He later in his career had a .462 3pt% year. It can definitely change.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Jason Kidd 
1st Year 27% 
Career 32%

Gary Payton
1st 7.7%
2nd 13%
3rd 20%
Career 32%

John Stockton
1st 18%
2nd 13%
3rd 18%
Career 36%

Isiah Thomas
1st 28%
2nd 28%
6th 19%
Career 29%

Magic
1st 22% (7/31)
2nd 17%
3rd 20%
4th 0% (0/21)
Career 30%

Telfair
1st 25%

My point? Well do I really need to say much? Except for one thing Sebastian was younger in his rookie year than any of these guys. All of whom are Hall of Fame PG's, most of whom were really bad shooters to start their careers.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Schilly said:


> Gary Payton
> *1st 7.7%*
> 2nd 13%
> 3rd 20%
> Career 32%


Haha, ouch. I don't remember him being that bad of a shooter at OSU. Guess the transition was really tough for him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> I'd guess that most starting NBA guards average around 35% from three. most of them don't come right out of the chute as rookies hitting at that clip. why should Telfair be different?


I don't believe that most PGs come into the NBA shooting poorly and get better. Many PGs come into the league as good shooters and some PGs never become good shooters.

Telfair came into the league as a bad shooter... I don't see how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.

I'm certainly not precluding the possibility of Sebastian developing into a good shooter, but I find it unlikely.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't believe that most PGs come into the NBA shooting poorly and get better. Many PGs come into the league as good shooters and some PGs never become good shooters.
> 
> Telfair came into the league as a bad shooter... I don't see how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.
> 
> ...


Ed I think you are intentionally being blind...I would say it's rare for a player to come into the leaguie and be as good of a shooter as they will ever be, most get better

Heck Glenn Rice only shot 24% from 3 in his rookie year then went on to shoot 40% for his career.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't believe that most PGs come into the NBA shooting poorly and get better. Many PGs come into the league as good shooters and some PGs never become good shooters.
> 
> Telfair came into the league as a bad shooter... I don't see how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.
> 
> ...


He doesn't need to. He needs to develop into an AVERAGE outside shooter. 

Great shooters, like Webster seems to be on the path to, are BORN. 

Average shooters are MADE. Made with 2-3 offseasons of 1000 jumpshots a day, 2-3 seasons of maturation on the court. All signs point to Telfair being able to improve to at least be a 34%-36% shooter from 3 point range. 

I like the examples above. Payton, Kidd, Stockton...not GREAT shooters. And they didn't/don't need to be. They need only to be average to keep the defense honest.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

What's more Ed...

Michael Jordan only shot 17% from 3 as a Rookie but had a couple years over 40% and for his career shot 32% nope he didn't get better as a shooter at all...

Craig Hodges
22% Rookie year 21% 2nd year overall 40% career. 

I've looked at a lot of players to see, and so far only Damon got worse with age.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> My point? Well do I really need to say much? Except for one thing Sebastian was younger in his rookie year than any of these guys. All of whom are Hall of Fame PG's, most of whom were really bad shooters to start their careers.


Well Thomas never got any better. Stockton's sample size is ridiculously skewed (he only attempted 64 three pointers in his first three years COMBINED... Sebastian attempted 69 last year as a rookie). Payton, too, didn't shoot many three pointers (only 68 in his first three years combined) and neither he nor Magic nor Kidd (as of yet) ever evolved into good three point shooters.

This is all anecdotal evidence, in any case. If someone wanted to argue that size was very important in the NBA I could list off players like Unseld and Barley and Archibald to "show" that it's not... but the exception doesn't prove the rule.

In this case, the rule as I see it is that bad shooters rarely become good shooters. It doesn't mean that they can't and don't improve, but there's no natural development path to better shooting that I can see.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Well Thomas never got any better. Stockton's sample size is ridiculously skewed (he only attempted 64 three pointers in his first three years COMBINED). Payton, too, didn't shoot many three pointers (only 68 in his first three years combined) and neither he nor Magic nor Kidd (yet) ever evolved into good three point shooters.
> 
> Ed O.


So 64 and 68 is a bad sample size.

Yet Telfair's 69 attempts last season is a good indicator of his ability?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kenny Anderson 
23% rookie
34% for his career

Brent Price
16% as a rookie
38% Career

Terry Porter 
31% Rookie
21% 2nd Year
38% Career

Mark Jackson
25% Rookie
33% Career


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Well Thomas never got any better. Stockton's sample size is ridiculously skewed (he only attempted 64 three pointers in his first three years COMBINED... Sebastian attempted 69 last year as a rookie). Payton, too, didn't shoot many three pointers (only 68 in his first three years combined) and neither he nor Magic nor Kidd (as of yet) ever evolved into good three point shooters.
> 
> This is all anecdotal evidence, in any case. If someone wanted to argue that size was very important in the NBA I could list off players like Unseld and Barley and Archibald to "show" that it's not... but the exception doesn't prove the rule.
> 
> ...


Maybe because they were that much worse of Shooters than Telfair is and had the "Don't shoot unless you have to!" restriction?

But it isn't rare in fact, it's common for bad shooters to become acceptable shooters....


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I didn't really know for sure if Ed is right or wrong, so I just randomly started pulling guard's names out of the air to test the theory.
pllayer, first season 3fg%, current season

Baron Davis, 22%, 34%
Gary Payton, 7%, 32%
Stephon Marbury, 35%, 35%
Steve Nash, 41%, 43%
Vince Carter, 28%, 42%
Paul Pierce, 41%, 37%
Michael Redd, 44%, 35%
Tracy Mcgrady, 34%, 32%
Kobe Bryant, 37%, 34%
Rick Brunson, 36%, 37%
Antonio Daniels, 21%, 30
Andre Miller, 20%, 15%

from this (very unscientific) poll, it seems that most of the guards who last in this league develop a shooting stroke over time. not necessarily lethal, but at least passable. Andre Miller, of course, is the noted exception, and it's certainly possible that's in the cards for Telfair. but I look at what Daniels, Carter, Payton and Davis all did and it certainly seems like the he's got at least an even chance of making huge improvements. 

Ed, can you name other starting-quality PG's like Andre Miller who continued to absolutely stink as shooters after a few years in the game? I'm drawing a blank, but I suppose there must be some.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Ed I think you are intentionally being blind...I would say it's rare for a player to come into the leaguie and be as good of a shooter as they will ever be, most get better
> 
> Heck Glenn Rice only shot 24% from 3 in his rookie year then went on to shoot 40% for his career.


I think you're intentionally being optimistic.

Why was Glen Rice drafted out of Michigan? Was it because he was a great ballhandler? Great size?

No. It was because he was a shooter.

Why was Telfair drafted at the end of the lottery in spite of being one of the most hyped prepsters of all time. Was it his age? He's older than Livingston, so no. Was it his lack of quickness? Or his lack of court vision? No and no.

He was seen _and has proven to be_ a poor perimeter shooter. I don't think I'm going out on any sort of limb here in saying those things, and I don't think that it's a bold statement that there's no guarantee he's going to be a good shooter.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Fork said:


> So 64 and 68 is a bad sample size.
> 
> Yet Telfair's 69 attempts last season is a good indicator of his ability?


Yes it is. Why? Because he wanted to draft Al Jefferson or Pavel over Telfair, that's why. Ed is hilarious.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I think you're intentionally being optimistic.
> 
> Why was Glen Rice drafted out of Michigan? Was it because he was a great ballhandler? Great size?
> 
> ...


No I'm not being overly optomistic, I am making an effort to prove that your statement that players never improve as shooters is dead wrong. ANd obviously when I provide statistical data as to such you believe I am being overly optomistic. I'm not at all, all I'm saying is just becasue he shot 25% last year from 3 that doesn't mean he never will be better than that, something you seem to think.



> I don't believe that most PGs come into the NBA shooting poorly and get better. Many PGs come into the league as good shooters and some PGs never become good shooters.


That may be true if taken totally literally, but many do becom adequite.

BTW You are going out on a Limb by saying he will never improve.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> He doesn't need to. He needs to develop into an AVERAGE outside shooter.


Bull. The original statement was based on some sort of perceived inevitability about Telfair being a better shooter than DA and Damon. DA and Damon are pretty good shooters, and in order for Telfair to be better than they have been, he will need to be significantly better than average.



> Average shooters are MADE. Made with 2-3 offseasons of 1000 jumpshots a day, 2-3 seasons of maturation on the court. All signs point to Telfair being able to improve to at least be a 34%-36% shooter from 3 point range.


I don't see ANY signs, let alone "all signs".

I guess the signs of him "shooting 1000 jumpshots a day" or "showing great confidence" and statements that are just as easily spin as they are precursors of significantly improved shooting are enough for some people. But not for me.



> I like the examples above. Payton, Kidd, Stockton...not GREAT shooters. And they didn't/don't need to be. They need only to be average to keep the defense honest.


Stockton was a great shooter. You don't shoot over 40% from 3 points range six times in your career without being so. Payton and Kidd are significantly lower than 35% for their careers and have only broken 34.1% in a season *four times * in 26 combined years in the NBA (one of which was when the NBA had the shorter 3 point line.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Was it his age? He's older than Livingston, so no.


Because Telfair is roughly 3 or 4 months older than Livingston, you're saying his age had nothing to do with him being drafted at #13? You're statement is crazy.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Stats can be decieving...

As pointed out before...at least two of Webster's shots (and a few of Telfair's as well) were rushed against the shot clock......Shot clock management is one area POR needs to continue to address.

I thought Telfair looked pretty good out there...The problem he has is that he can get by his man at will...and so when the shot clock gets down....he reverts to doing what he has always done in HS...making the play himself...I think he would prefer to drive and dish, but too often last night the rest of the guys on the floor stood around and watched Telfair instead of cutting to the basket......That needs to be worked on, b\c Bassy WILL deliver the ball to you if you are open....he is incredibly good at that.

I thought his shot looked good actually....he was fouled on several drives...and had a few rushes against the shot clock...he hit some outside shots and missed some...I'd need to see more before I gave my opinion on whether or not his shooting is better than last years....

One thing was for sure...he was ALL over the floor when he was in there, and quite disruptive defensively against Ridnour....he was directly responsible for some steals and SEA turnovers....and I liked the fact he was standing up and rooting for Jack and other Blazer players...and was very vocal on the floor. I think he will have a very good year.

I liked what I saw from Webster too...but after he hit his 1st shot...the team didn't really look for him...nice looking form on his shot but he was off tonight...but he seems intelligent out there...making good decisions and knowing where to be on the floor.

Jack looked good too...had some goos assists and hit a few outside shots, and had some rookie like mistakes\turnovers...but overall he looked good.

It was nice to see Zach passing the ball...a lot...and eventually he found his shots.

Overall it was a sloppy game...but the team played hard the entire game and that was a very encouraging sign.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> No I'm not being overly optomistic, I am making an effort to prove that *your statement that players never improve as shooters * is dead wrong.


Do you have a link to where I said this? Or will you retract your misrepresentation and/or confusion over my point?

PLEASE show me where I said that. PLEASE show me what statement I made made you _reasonably think_ that I said that.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed I'll go out on a Limb and say if Telfair develops into a 36% 3pt shooter he will be one of the Bestt PGS we have seen in the league...IMO he will probably be about a 30% 3pt shooter for his career, but lets face it, no one expected Damon to go from 39% as a rookie to 35% for his career, nor did people expect Stockton to go from 18% as a rookie to a guy who shot over 40% for his career.

To make any blanket statements at this point is premature.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't believe that most PGs come into the NBA shooting poorly and get better. Many PGs come into the league as good shooters and some PGs never become good shooters.
> 
> Telfair came into the league as a bad shooter... I don't see how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.
> 
> ...


Hey I'm more than willing to admit when I am wrong. In that statement I made which you quoted I was in fact wrong, and I apologize for misrepresenting your sentiment.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I think you're intentionally being optimistic.
> 
> Why was Glen Rice drafted out of Michigan? Was it because he was a great ballhandler? Great size?
> 
> ...


Not to mention Livingston was drafted much earlier than Telfair but is a really bad shooter, even in H.S. Telfair shot and made a very high % of 3 pointers in high school, so I do believe he can shoot the ball but is working with distance and even the rim as NBA has different standards of their rims. Just like Payton, Kidd, Stockton, and the rest of them Telfair will improve as a shooter significantly. The notion that Telfair won't improve his shooting is just plain retarded.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> So 64 and 68 is a bad sample size.
> 
> Yet Telfair's 69 attempts last season is a good indicator of his ability?


Do you think that Telfair was not a bad shooter last year? Do you think that the small sample size led to a percentage that significantly varied from his true ability?

If you do, then that's fine. Take the position that Telfair is a fine shooter and that one of the basic tenets of my argument is incorrect. That's totally cool.

The reason I bring up sample size with those players is because their later "improvement" might have been simply a more accurate representation of their true ability. I'm sure that they improved, too, but because they simply shot so few three pointers their first few years it's hard for me to accept that Stockton suddenly really got twice as good over the course of a single summer (as when he went from .184 on 38 attempts in his third year to .358 on 67 attempts in his fourth).

Looking at Stockton the next year, when he attempted 66 three pointers, he dipped back down to 24.2%... did he get worse? Maybe, or maybe there simply weren't enough chances for him. Once he started shooting over 100 a year (as he did in year six) he didn't go back below 32%.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Ed I'll go out on a Limb and say if Telfair develops into a 36% 3pt shooter he will be one of the Bestt PGS we have seen in the league...


Agreed 100%. Absolutely.

Ed O.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

some things that impressed me last night:
Ruben actually scored away from the hoop.
After the flashy Telfair to Webster dunk, you(i or it seemed to me) could visibly tell that they both knew they where going to get a toungue lashing.(not sure if this one was just me or if any one else got that impression)
the Blazer dancers are farm league.(hot but more than a few should see the Dleague.)
300 seats aren't all that bad if you are sitting center court. took my eyes a while to adjust.
when this team starts to really gell they are going to RULE the boards!
any one else creeped out by the tiny chicks they throw way the hell up into the air? they all look exactly the same, are all the exact same size etc. is there a bio engineer some where making them? ...creepy.
every thing else has been covered.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Stockton was a great shooter. You don't shoot over 40% from 3 points range six times in your career without being so. Payton and Kidd are significantly lower than 35% for their careers and have only broken 34.1% in a season *four times * in 26 combined years in the NBA (one of which was when the NBA had the shorter 3 point line.
> 
> Ed O.


I guess that's more evidence that Telfair can become a great shooter. 

Stockton became a great shooter, despite hitting only 11 of his first 65 three pointers.

Telfair hit 17 of his first 69 three point attempts.

Why did you say Stockton's sample size (65 shots in three years) was not a good measure of his shooting skill, yet you're already willing to say Telfair is a bad shooter after just 4 more attempts?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> Ed, can you name other starting-quality PG's like Andre Miller who continued to absolutely stink as shooters after a few years in the game? I'm drawing a blank, but I suppose there must be some.


Let's see... I'm being no more systematic than anyone else here, so this list doesn't prove or disprove anything, but here's who I can think of:

Avery Johnson .111 / .145
Rod Strickland .322 / .282
Muggsy Bogues .188 / .278

And, not quite fitting your description but also showing no improvement:
Allen Iverson .341 / .309 (Iverson's rookie year was with the short line)

The population of bad shooting starting point guards just isn't that large... most teams can find someone who can hit the 3 pointer with some regularity.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Telfair came into the league as a bad shooter... I don't see how anyone can dispute that with a straight face.





> He was seen and has proven to be a poor perimeter shooter. I don't think I'm going out on any sort of limb here in saying those things, and I don't think that it's a bold statement that there's no guarantee he's going to be a good shooter.


I will dispute that "supposed" fact...b\c it is pure BS and you know it Ed.

What "reputation" are you refering too? He shot a high percentage in HS. He shot poorly as a rookie...not a big surprise...as most rookies do indeed shoot poorly. 

hwere did you derive that "opinion" from? What a few analysts said? Or a particular scout said? I'd like to see you provide some links to that comment to back up your definitve statement above...and not some internet fan boy's musings....

There is no guarantee he will be a bad shooter either Ed...I suspect you know that, but for some reason take pleasure in harping on and on and on about Telfair's shooting....and judging him by 60 games as a shooter in his rookie year IS going out on a limb there...plain and simple...players CAN and DO get better...

I guess we will see this year b\c Telfair will play and play a LOT. But I am sure you will continue to spout your pessimism about him & the team in general....

I don't know why you do it though....being optimistic....even if it delves into a little unrealistic is ok...it is what passionate fans do, and I don't have a problem with it..apparently you and some other people here do.

So stop hanging out with tlong will ya? :wink:

B\c I thought the team was fun to watch last night...more fun than I watched in a long time.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Do you think that Telfair was not a bad shooter last year? Do you think that the small sample size led to a percentage that significantly varied from his true ability?
> 
> If you do, then that's fine. Take the position that Telfair is a fine shooter and that one of the basic tenets of my argument is incorrect. That's totally cool.


No, I don't think it's neccesarily an issue of sample size with Telfair. I think he's probably about a 27-29% shooter right now. Significantly below average. 

But he also has a PUTRID shooting stroke. It looks like an epileptic fit. With improved mechanics he will improve to be at least a 35% shooter and possibly creep up into the high 30s. 

There's no reason for me to believe that his mechanics won't improve as he gets a little older and keeps working on it. Do you think his mechanics are so bad he can't improve them?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Telfairs outside Shooting Numbers in HS

Freshman 25.9%
Sophmore 41%
Junior 38.8%
Senior 45%


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season? I find that doubtful, but Damon's shot 35.9% for his career. Will Telfair crack 85% from the line? Maybe, but both DA and Damon have shot over that for their careers. Damon and DA weren't nearly as bad of shooters as some of us think... it was a matter of taking good shots as part of an offensive plan.


damon was a bad shooter. DA was a bad shooter.

If you took away the extra point to the 3 point shots, it'd show he's a bad shooter.

Why do you find it doubtful that Telfair will ever shoot 36%? because after 1 season, and 1 pre-season game he's not shooting that?

that's faulty thinking at best.



> I don't see evidence that Telfair will be a better shooter than Damon or DA. "Confidence" in your shot is only good if a player's a good shooter. If Telfair shoots a bad percentage, I'd definitely prefer him to pass more and shoot less.
> 
> I agree that Webster will be a better shooter than DA or Damon, barring injuries, but I have my doubts about Jack.
> 
> ...



you totally, and typically, missed my point. The guys who are gone, would shoot bad shots..and thats the best they can do. The guys who are here, had bad shooting games, and you know thats not norm.

It was more par for the course for DA and Damon to have bad shooting games...and that was their peaks.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Bull. The original statement was based on some sort of perceived inevitability about Telfair being a better shooter than DA and Damon. DA and Damon are pretty good shooters, and in order for Telfair to be better than they have been, he will need to be significantly better than average.



if you meant my statement, than you totally and epically missed the boat on it. I was saying that DA and Damon were peaking at their sub-par average, so to me damon shooting 40% over and over, is worse than a guy who's younger, and hasn't peak, shooting 40%.

DA and Damon are "pretty good shooters"...thats a good one Ed.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> if you meant my statement, than you totally and epically missed the boat on it. I was saying that DA and Damon were peaking at their sub-par average, so to me damon shooting 40% over and over, is worse than a guy who's younger, and hasn't peak, shooting 40%.
> 
> DA and Damon are "pretty good shooters"...thats a good one Ed.


Actually Hap that's a good point, we should be looking at overall FG%


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Do you think that Telfair was not a bad shooter last year? Do you think that the small sample size led to a percentage that significantly varied from his true ability?
> 
> If you do, then that's fine. Take the position that Telfair is a fine shooter and that one of the basic tenets of my argument is incorrect. That's totally cool.
> 
> ...



as I said in the last time this was all brought up...

take a look at Jeff Hornacek.

Check out his 3FG% 

he started out at under 28% and ended a 14 year career at over 40%


Telfair may not be off to a great start right now shooting 3's... but do we necessarily want him to do it like Damon? I want him to run the team and dish out 10 dimes a games liek he did last night.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> as I said in the last time this was all brought up...
> 
> take a look at Jeff Hornacek.
> 
> ...


How many Dimes would telfair have had...had the team shot more like 40% from the field?


----------



## Chalupa (Jul 20, 2005)

theWanker said:


> I didn't really know for sure if Ed is right or wrong, so I just randomly started pulling guard's names out of the air to test the theory.
> pllayer, first season 3fg%, current season
> 
> Baron Davis, 22%, 34%
> ...


Andre Miller has a funky push shot mechanic that limits his range. While he sucks at 3fg% he is actually a very effective shooter from mid range with a .477 fg% last season. Andre's shooting improved too from 0.449% his rookie season. 

Telfair of course doesn't have a shooting mechanic that cripples his 3 point shooting and will more than likely improve his shot.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> damon was a bad shooter. DA was a bad shooter.
> 
> If you took away the extra point to the 3 point shots, it'd show he's a bad shooter.


And if you'd cut off Shaq's head, he's short for a center.

I don't follow your logic of why you'd make DA and Damon's 3 pointers worth less than Telfair's.



> Why do you find it doubtful that Telfair will ever shoot 36%? because after 1 season, and 1 pre-season game he's not shooting that?
> 
> that's faulty thinking at best.


Please find one opinion or one stat that supports that he's ever been a good shooter. 

Other, of course, than some homers on this board.

Schilly (not one of the homers) brings up Telfair's 45% 3 point shooting as a senior and it is about the closest thing that I'm aware of, but shooting 45% in high school isn't anything special.



> you totally, and typically, missed my point. The guys who are gone, would shoot bad shots..and thats the best they can do. The guys who are here, had bad shooting games, and you know thats not norm.


That's like the point you made about how Luke Jackson isn't another Ed O'Bannon... because he's not another Ed O'Bannon.

Your "point" is conclusory and isn't supported by evidence. I'm not missing the point... I just find it a weak one.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> And if you'd cut off Shaq's head, he's short for a center.
> 
> I don't follow your logic of why you'd make DA and Damon's 3 pointers worth less than Telfair's.


I don't get why you're acting as if I said anything of the sort.

I said that a player who's peaking at a bad % is worse than someone who's improving and shoots the same %.

You, and you alone, injected the hair-brained connection to DA and Damon's shooting %'s being "better" than Telfairs..when that wasn't what I was getting at.

Try paying attention Ed.

I feel better about a guy who is shooting bad, BECAUSE it's probable that it's not the peak of that guys career. 

I feel worse when a guy shoots bad, and that IS the peak of the guys career.

Does that make sense to you now? or do I need to dumb it down some more?

I'll gladly take someone who's young and improving and not shooting that great (but can improve), over some guy who's older, and still is shooting a poor %.

This is about how i feel about something.



> It's a nice feeling (in an odd way) to have players like Webster, Jack and Telfair, shoot bad knowing they can (and most likely will) get better...vs having players shoot that bad, knowing thats the best they'll get (DA, Damon).


"knowing they can" does not = "knowing they *will*"

whereas we KNOW that Damon and DA won't get any better shooting wise.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> "knowing they can" does not = "knowing they *will*"
> 
> whereas we KNOW that Damon and DA won't get any better shooting wise.


That's fantastic. Have you been reading what I've been discussing with other people? It's about how Telfair, as a shooter, will compare to DA and Damon, as shooters. And whether it's certain that Telfair will be better than they were.

If you don't want to discuss that point, that's your prerogative. However, if you consider DA and Damon to have been bad shooters in their careers, Telfair's got a heck of a long ways to go to even get to "bad".

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap said:


> "knowing they can" does not = "knowing they *will*"
> whereas we KNOW that Damon and DA won't get any better shooting wise.


...under Coach Cheeks' "system", at least.

PBF


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That's fantastic. Have you been reading what I've been discussing with other people? It's about how Telfair, as a shooter, will compare to DA and Damon, as shooters. And whether it's certain that Telfair will be better than they were.
> 
> If you don't want to discuss that point, that's your prerogative. However, if you consider DA and Damon to have been bad shooters in their careers, Telfair's got a heck of a long ways to go to even get to "bad".
> 
> Ed O.


you read more into my comment to warp the arguement to your favor. so yes, I did read the rest of the thread.

considering YOU (and as I said earlier, you alone) changed it into me saying Telfair will be a better shoter than Damon, thats the reason why Im addressing that you muffed my argument up.

I really don't care how the rest of the thread went, because you changed what i said.

look at the first thing you said after my post.



> You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season? I find that doubtful, but Damon's shot 35.9% for his career. Will Telfair crack 85% from the line? Maybe, but both DA and Damon have shot over that for their careers. Damon and DA weren't nearly as bad of shooters as some of us think... it was a matter of taking good shots as part of an offensive plan.
> 
> I don't see evidence that Telfair will be a better shooter than Damon or DA. "Confidence" in your shot is only good if a player's a good shooter. If Telfair shoots a bad percentage, I'd definitely prefer him to pass more and shoot less.


thats changing the crux of my argument (which wasn't even an argument) to me saying I think telfair will shoot on par with Damon..when I was just saying I like the feeling of cheering a guy who's probably gonna improve vs someone who's staying stagnant.

you changed it, to fit your counter argument.

Like I said, I don't care what others said. you tagged my post as saying something it didn't, and pulled a huge Hap here.

own up to it eddie! I do! 

sorta.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Total FG%

Damon - Career 40.9% (39.2 last year)
Derek - Career 41.1% (38.9l last year)
Telfair - Career 39.3% (39.3% last year)

Hmm so Telfair had the best overall FG% of those 3 last year.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you read more into my comment to warp the arguement to your favor. so yes, I did read the rest of the thread.


I'm not warping anything, in spite of your conclusions that I've missed the point and/or epically missed the boat.

You said if we removed the extra point for the 3 pointers they've made, I would see how bad of shooters they are. I find that prospect to be a waste of time.

Players shoot 3 pointers knowing that they are worth three points. Some of them choose to shoot from farther away from the basket because they're worth three points. Removing that extra point alters things in a way that doesn't accurately depict shooting ability.

Looking merely at 2 point shots doesn't necessarily show shooting ability any better, either. 2 pointers are a combination of dunks and layups and runners and mid-range jumpers and longer shots... should the ability to dunk be a consideration when we're comparing shooters? In the sense of FG% alone and/or scoring efficiency, certainly. In terms of a shooting stroke and extending range and stretching the defense, no.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I'm not warping anything, in spite of your conclusions that I've missed the point and/or epically missed the boat.
> 
> You said if we removed the extra point for the 3 pointers they've made, I would see how bad of shooters they are. I find that prospect to be a waste of time.
> 
> ...


but I never said that i thought telfair would be a better shooter.

considering that little factoid..I really don't see what you have any reason to have gone off on this.

not only that, I don't think the 3 points vs 2 points bears into whether or not you're a good shooter.

I dont think that because an abritary 1 point more is added, that because you shoot 40% from the floor, makes you a better shooter than someone who shoots 45% from "2".

If you make the basket, you make the basket.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I really don't care how the rest of the thread went, because you changed what i said.


I didn't change what you said. I was making a different point, with your post as the springboard.

If I have a job where I make $40k, and I want to make more than that but I know it will never happen at my current job it is not rational for me to go work at McDonalds, knowing that someday I can make more money than I make as a new hire.

None of us were happy with DA and Damon as shooters... but Telfair (for all of his strengths elsewhere, and I'm not denying that he has them) makes those guys look like Jerry West.

Ed O.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Telfair needs to jsut let it fly. You gotta shoot the rock with no hesitation, then it comes off beautifully. Usually when he takes the J you can tell that he's hoping it'll go down rather than shooting it and seein' what will happen. He better improve that J, or he'll be the next to never have been all he could be. Webster's struggles are to be expected, it's a huge jump from Seattle High school comp to the best of the best of the best of ... Jack was quite a surprise I thought the ankle would severely hamper him as would his marginal ball handling skills, but he seems to have worked on some things especially that J of his. I'm upset however, that there's no blazers preseason games on league pass, that really burns me up. I'll just have to wait 'til November to watch the hardest working most exciting team in the league play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I didn't change what you said. I was making a different point, with your post as the springboard.
> 
> If I have a job where I make $40k, and I want to make more than that but I know it will never happen at my current job it is not rational for me to go work at McDonalds, knowing that someday I can make more money than I make as a new hire.
> 
> ...


than don't quote my post and use it as a reference point to what started all this crap.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> than don't quote my post and use it as a reference point to what started all this crap.


Give me a ****ing break. I asked you a question and I made a point. The discussion was just fine... nobody used big text until you did. Nobody insulted me about "missing the point" or "epically missing the boat" or "inject[ing] the hair-brained connection" or about not paying attention in this thread.

Until you did, of course.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Give me a ****ing break. I asked you a question and I made a point. The discussion was just fine... nobody used big text until you did. Nobody insulted me about "missing the point" or "epically missing the boat" or "inject[ing] the hair-brained connection" or about not paying attention in this thread.
> 
> Until you did, of course.
> 
> Ed O.


for starters, we should watch it ed..we might be "taking over"..

secondly, you asked a question?



> You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season? I find that doubtful, but Damon's shot 35.9% for his career. Will Telfair crack 85% from the line? Maybe, but both DA and Damon have shot over that for their careers. Damon and DA weren't nearly as bad of shooters as some of us think... it was a matter of taking good shots as part of an offensive plan.


seems more like you implying Im foolish for thinking Telfair will shoot better than Damon, when I didn't even say that. I said that he was improving.

especially once you said



> Bull. The original statement was based on some sort of perceived inevitability about Telfair being a better shooter than DA and Damon. DA and Damon are pretty good shooters, and in order for Telfair to be better than they have been, he will need to be significantly better than average.


you're implying my statement was "based" on something it abolustely wasn't.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

So...how 'bout them Blazers?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I agree that Webster will be a better shooter than DA or Damon, barring injuries, but I have my doubts about Jack.
> 
> Ed O.


Since it feels like a rail on Ed Day....

Jacks College shooting numbers

03/04 
45.6% fg 
31.6% 3pt

04/05
51.4% fg
44.2% 3pt


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Since it feels like a rail on Ed Day....
> 
> Jacks College shooting numbers
> 
> ...


And Damons....

91/92
45.5% fg
40.6% 3pt

92/93
41.9% fg
38.2% 3pt

93/94
44.8% fg
35.1% 3pt

94/95
47.6% fg
46.5% 3 pt


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Schilly said:


> So...how 'bout them Blazers?


I hear their point guard is short and can't shoot. :angel:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> for starters, we should watch it ed..we might be "taking over"..


I don't know what you're talking about. Did others insult me, too? Maybe sambonius did... I have him on ignore so I wouldn't know (now that I think about it, he probably worked his famous "retard" witticism in there somewhere).



> secondly, you asked a question?


Um. Yeah. From my first post that launched these 1000 ships. First line, actually:

"You think that Telfair will ever shoot 36% from three point range in a season?"



> you're implying my statement was "based" on something it abolustely wasn't.


To be honest, I don't remember which post I was referencing... it certainly seems like I was saying you said something you did not say. For that, I apologize to you and to Fork (to whom I said "bull" with no seeming cause).

Ed O.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

This thread has turned to :cthread: .

PBF


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

It is getting close to Stack House/ Wells part 2


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Clearly, lots of point guards came into the league with bad outside shooting, including some of the very best (Magic, Stockton), but improved, and that's not even trying to account for age differences. While that's no guarantee of success, it looks pretty obvious that most who start bad end up getting at least somewhat better (hey, experience is worth something after all). Still, in the unlikely event that Telfair never significantly improves, there's still a chance of greatness: Isiah Thomas was never a great outside shooter (only one season where he hit even a third of his 3's), but he and his teams had some pretty good seasons. Telfair is off to a pretty good start, considering that shooting appears to be something that can be learned while play making is not.

If half of the Blazers' current prospects turn out average, then this team will be pretty good in 2 years. There's still a reasonable chance that at least one will also turn out to be a near all-nba type, which could be nice to see, as long as the team is appropriately not churned/dumped too soon like the Clippers and Warriors have been for years.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> To be honest, I don't remember which post I was referencing... it certainly seems like I was saying you said something you did not say. For that, I apologize to you and to Fork (to whom I said "bull" with no seeming cause).
> 
> Ed O.


to quote the popular kids from about 8 years ago..

it's all good.


----------

