# Telfair/Webster vs. Paul/Smith



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I'm not sure why it never occurred to me before this morning, but it'll be interesting to observe how our and New Orleans' young backcourts develop in the coming years, assuming both are held together. Interesting because we could have had their guys had we picked differently, taking the SG last year and the PG this year.

Considerations that spring to mind:

- We didn't draft Chris Paul because we already had Telfair, but even the most die hard Telfair fans (myself included) aren't yet confident we've got the better of the two.

- It's going to be a while before I'm comfortable with the Webster pick ... probably not till at least this time next year. Right now, JR Smith looks to be the much more well rounded player, and as I recall, jumped out of the gates reasonably quick last year. Let's hope Martell does the same, and learns to do something other than just sit in the corner and wait for shots.

It's an uncomfortable thought that our higher picked duo may not turn out to be the better tandem, but it's still way too early to know for sure.

Other thoughts?

Dan


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Bassy is the truth. Fall back. ***AYEE!***


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Good observation. It will be interesting to watch each develop.

Our picks #6 & #13. Their pick #4 & #18.

Time will prove it one way or the other.

I always love looking back at prior Drafts and re-drafting it. Some players really move (up or down).


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

As an ACC native, I can only say again that Paul will not be as good a pro as Jack will turn out being. Having Telfair and Jack means we win in this position hands down.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

YardApe said:


> As an ACC native, I can only say again that Paul will not be as good a pro as Jack will turn out being. Having Telfair and Jack means we win in this position hands down.


you left off the *IMO*. I grew up in NC on ACC ball myself, and happen to think Chris Paul is a very special player. I'm not nearly as optimistic over Jack's pro potencial as you. I sure wish ST had Paul's jumper and ability to shoot off the dribble.

Like dkap, I'll be interested in seeing how these future matchups go.

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Jack is definitely the wild card in the equation, which sort of means we're hedging our bets on which combo will turn out better.

Dan


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dkap said:


> Jack is definitely the wild card in the equation, which sort of means we're hedging our bets on which combo will turn out better.
> 
> Dan


Exactly. Your watch list, to be more accurate, should be:

Telfair, Webster and Jack VS.

Paul and Smith

I think Paul will be the best overall player.

Telfair and Smith have already shown they will be at worst solid NBA players. Both have higher upsides.

If Webster turns into a Dale Ellis (or better), and Jack turns into a Bobby Jackson caliber, our guard core could be better overall. Only time will tell.

I guess an interesting question for now would be: as a Portland fan (and disregarding the PR investment the team has made), would you trade Telfair, Webster and Jack for Paul and Smith?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Exactly. Your watch list, to be more accurate, should be:
> 
> Telfair, Webster and Jack VS.
> 
> Paul and Smith


...then you might as well add Detriots 1st round pick next year in the mix as well.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I'm mostly interested in just the original comparison, because impact starters are 90% of the battle for any team. Backups and late picks are a dime a dozen, for the most part.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I thought about this subject a couple of days ago, too, when I was thinking about what other teams in the West might be worse than Portland this year.

The Hornets and the Blazers are actually pretty similar right now. Portland's deeper in terms of prospects but has fewer veterans. Portland's also got a big edge, IMO, in the coaching as I think Byron Scott is one of the worst coaches in the NBA. And Paul Allen is a significantly better owner than George Shinn.

If I had my druthers, I think that I'd prefer Paul and Smith to Telfair and Webster... at this point I just see each of the Hornets guards as better prospects than their Blazers counterparts. 

It will be interesting to see the teams and backcourts match up, though, in the near and long terms.

Ed O.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd much rather have Telfair, Webster, Jack, and Detroit's First Rounder.

Paul and Telfair to me are a wash. I think either one would be wonderful to build a team with, IMO.

I'll take my chances with Web, Jack and ???.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> I'd much rather have Telfair, Webster, Jack, and Detroit's First Rounder.
> 
> Paul and Telfair to me are a wash. I think either one would be wonderful to build a team with, IMO.
> 
> I'll take my chances with Web, Jack and ???.


Of course the Hornets can choose to bring back either Dickau or Claxton who are probably both well ahead of Jack and Detroit's 2006 1st rounder. They've also reportedly signed international star Arvydas Macijauskas to a three year deal.

STOMP


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

Portland's scouts were goo goo gaa gaa over Jack. I don't remember them clamoring over Dickau. I'll take Jack.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I have some high expectations for Jack... not monumental expectations, but high. He impressed many people around the nation over the last few years and was once regarded as a possible top 5 pick. He seems to have a great skill set, I just hope that he has his head on straight and can accept his role, whatever it may be.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I think that Paul and Smith won't compliment each other too well and I think one of them will eventually leave. All Smith does is shoot, that's ALL he does. He's good at it, he's a good scorer and athletic but he looks to shoot the ball everytime the ball touches his hands. Paul is a good talent but he's a scorer's PG, not a true PG which would better compliment Smith. I see both working together like Damon and Derek Anderson but, but obviously much better. 

I just don't see a team game coming from those two and especially Smith. Telfair is the better prospect when compared to Paul but the Smith vs Webster is debatable. Both can shoot, but Smith is more of a shotter than a shooter and Webster is a shooter. Webster is really only known for his shooting ability, maturity, and basketball IQ which Smith lacks but he is a tremendous athlete. His team game needs a lot of work however.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> All Smith does is shoot, that's ALL he does.


Reports having him being very smooth around the basket and finishing difficult shots in traffic. Combine that with a good outside stroke and you've got the makings of a very good shooting guard. That's about all you can hope for out of a HS'er not named LeBron ... it'll be a minor accomplishment if Webster makes it to even the same point, let alone better.

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Crimson the Cat said:


> Portland's scouts were goo goo gaa gaa over Jack. I don't remember them clamoring over Dickau. I'll take Jack.


Is there a team who's scouts aren't goo goo gaa gaa over their respective 1st round pick? Has there ever been? It's a business after all, and they are trying to entice us into purchasing ticket plans.

I'm hopeful that all of Portland's guards go on to enjoy HOF careers, but today... comparing just the starters or including the bench (can't wait to see Macijauskas)... I've got to give the edge to the Hornets. Being generous to my rooting interest, I'll give the PG spot a push, but SG? According to Nash Webster isn't going to be starting any time soon, while Smith started (and played pretty well) for most of last year and looks to be coming on. I'm not sure if it will be DA or this new signee Smith, but I'd much rather have the Hornets Smith as my starting 2 then either of those two Blazers. There is zero doubt on who I'd take in a Claxton/Macijauskas vs Jack/Webster bench comparison for this year either.

My Blazers short term outlook is pretty depressing to hold... I'm hanging my hopes on down the line potencial.

STOMP


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Paul did not take Wake Forest anywhere! He and Justin Grey were hyped as the best two guard combo in the nation. However Jack and Bynum went much farther in the NCAA's every year. That can't be overlooked.

The NBA is the ACC on steroids so if Paul couldn't lead Wake I have no reason to think he'll do so much better now. Jack carried the Jackets to the NCAA finals. No one saw that coming!

The more I think about it I can't think of that many huge games Wake won while Paul was running the show. I don't think Paul even won the ACC title while being at Wake.

Vitale pumped this kid up way more than he ever earned.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I didn't realize that Nash was a coach? Further if Nash is going to use our lotto pick on a high school SG maybe this kid should be good enough to play some minutes? Otherwise we should have traded the pick or packaged it for a nice sign and trade of a vet player.

Why in the world draft a player so high and then let him rot on the bench for two years? Our team is not going to compete this year, so let Webster get some real playing time! 

If Nash doesn't play Webster and the rest of the young kids quite a bit then you have to question if Nash knows himself the direction the team is going?

Play the young ones, build their chemistry and coach them up! It's not that hard.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Play the young ones, build their chemistry and coach them up! It's not that hard.


I can't think of any teams in the modern era that started off terrible, added pieces only through the draft, played all their young guys, and then got good.

Portland's in a unique position because they've taken prep players three straight years, but whether that increases or decreases their chances for success with that strategy is unclear.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I can't think of any teams in the modern era that started off terrible, added pieces only through the draft, played all their young guys, and then got good.
> 
> Portland's in a unique position because they've taken prep players three straight years, but whether that increases or decreases their chances for success with that strategy is unclear.
> 
> Ed O.


history does not always repeat itself Eddie.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> history does not always repeat itself Eddie.


Either accept that certain things tend to work in the NBA and certain things don't, or reject it.

I don't see how one can logically reject it. Teams that are bad the previous year tend to be bad, and teams that are good tend to be good. Teams with good players and some experience tend to be more successful than teams with bad players and/or no experience.

If I accept it, and I do, it doesn't mean that I don't HOPE that this Blazers team will buck the trends and be successful with their current plan.

Having accepted it, though, and even given my hope for success, I don't see how anyone can say, "It's not that hard" with a straight face.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Either accept that certain things tend to work in the NBA and certain things don't, or reject it.
> 
> I don't see how one can logically reject it. Teams that are bad the previous year tend to be bad, and teams that are good tend to be good. Teams with good players and some experience tend to be more successful than teams with bad players and/or no experience.
> 
> ...


this the same logic as always hearing that "team X hasn't won @ team Y in 25 years"...when it really plays nothing on whether or not the team can in now. 

Or that "no road team has won game 7 in X years" and the road team wins game 7.

Or that "no home team has won the 3 straight home games in the NBA finals" and Detroit did last year. 

stranger things have happened.

Plus, it's very unlikely that the team is going to stand pat the whole time.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> stranger things have happened.


"Stranger things have happened" is the equivalent of saying, "anything is possible" which is, essentially, irrelevant.

Of course stranger things have happened. I'm not saying anything is impossible. But possible does not mean probable, let alone likely.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> "Stranger things have happened" is the equivalent of saying, "anything is possible" which is, essentially, irrelevant.
> 
> Of course stranger things have happened. I'm not saying anything is impossible. But possible does not mean probable, let alone likely.
> 
> Ed O.



I'd understand complaining if the team is the exact same in 3 years.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

If the baby Bulls can do it in under four and lose Jason Williams to a bike accident we can do it too.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Paul did not take Wake Forest anywhere! He and Justin Grey were hyped as the best two guard combo in the nation. However Jack and Bynum went much farther in the NCAA's every year. That can't be overlooked.
> 
> The NBA is the ACC on steroids so if Paul couldn't lead Wake I have no reason to think he'll do so much better now. Jack carried the Jackets to the NCAA finals. No one saw that coming!
> 
> ...


Speaking of overlooking... I'm not sure how you missed the mountain of wins, stats, and awards that Chris garnered at Wake... or how dispite being over a year and a half younger then Jack, he garnered more votes/recognition for the All-ACC (AKA the NCAA on steroids) teams both years. ACC frosh of the year, All-Defensive ACC... Last season Paul was a concensus All-American and a finalist for every major player of the year award while Jack recieved an All-American honorable mention. Maybe that was the work of Dick Vitale too? I'd love to hear you expand on that train(wreck) of thought.

Anyways... I'm siding with the rest of the world, enjoy life on your flat little island.

STOMP


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Stomp, 

It comes down to killer instinct and getting the W. When the games on the line Paul comes up short. I could give a rip about all the butt kisser awards you mentioned for Paul. Jack took his team farther than Paul took his. Same tough as nails conference different results.


Did Paul lead Wake to the NCAA finals? Jack did with a far less talented team. Well? Did Paul lead Wake right out of the tourni last year in a monster upset? Yep!

Paul is also three inches shorter than Jack and half as strong. Which type of PG do you think is built better for the NBA? 

I'm glad Paul got all these awards, but they would have meant a hell of alot more if he's led Wake to the title atleast one year or for that matter the final 8,4 or a title game.

As it looks now Felton and Jack were more succesful for their college teams than Paul was.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Did Paul lead Wake to the NCAA finals? Jack did with a far less talented team.


If I'm not mistaken, Jack's teammates were actually far more heralded than Paul's two years ago. And since Georgia Tech pretty much sucked last year, we don't have to much to go on there for comparative purposes.

Dan


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Stomp,
> 
> It comes down to killer instinct and getting the W. When the games on the line Paul comes up short. I could give a rip about all the butt kisser awards you mentioned for Paul. Jack took his team farther than Paul took his. Same tough as nails conference different results.
> 
> ...


Whatever you say...  but for those of us who prefer to base their speculations in reality, I'll point out a few conflicting facts to your overboard hyperbole. If JJ is twice as strong as CP, how come he was only able to post 5 bench presses of the 185 bar at the combine to CP's 10? Besides strength, another useful skill in the league (IMO) is being able to jump. Chris posted a full 10" advantage at the combine over Jack in the vertical jump measurements... Jack's 28.5" trailed just about every guard and forward that has shown up over the last 3 years... heck I've a better vert then that and I'm a 38 year old who plays a couple times a week in pickup games. 

As far as killer instint and coming away with the W, remind me how Paul's Wake clubs faired in the NCAA on steroids league? If memory doesn't fail me (like it apparently does you) didn't Wake beat every team in the ACC in both of the last 2 years? In Paul's two years at Wake the Deacons went 48-15 for a 76% winning percentage... Jack's Jackets went 64-37 for a 63% winning percentage in his 3 years. 

Point guards aside, I'm with dkap that it was GTech with the more talented team in 2003-4, especially in the frontcourt... the Deac's EWilliams isn't nearly the consistent post player as big Luke. btw...I watched most of GTech's NCAA run a couple years back (I had them in my final 4 pool). IMO they were a solid team with a good player at every position... here's an article you may find interesting...
http://ramblinwreck.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/070805aaa.html

Lastly... sorry but they don't hand out All-ACC and All-American awards based on butt-kissing, it's based on results. Paul wasn't drafted 18 slots higher then Jack because of what Dicky V said, it was because pro scouts felt he was the vastly superior prospect. I'd guess you pulled that out of the same spot you've gathered the rest of your argument. 

STOMP


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Jack's 28.5" trailed just about every guard and forward that has shown up over the last 3 years...


To be fair, though, Jack was on a supposedly injured ankle. Doesn't explain his rather anemic bench press results, though, unless he stopped doing any training after injuring the ankle.

Dan


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Jarrett Jack absolutely destroyed Chris Paul in every game they played each other.

One of the biggest 1 on 1 mismatches in recent ACC history.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

vadimivich said:


> Jarrett Jack absolutely destroyed Chris Paul in every game they played each other.
> 
> One of the biggest 1 on 1 mismatches in recent ACC history.


Huh. Weird. First box score I find: 

Jack: 23 points on 15 shots, 2 rebounds, 7 assists, 5 TOs, 1 steal
Paul: 17 points on 11 shots, 4 rebounds, 7 assists, 2 TOs, 2 steals

And Wake Forest won by 7.

Was it this kind of "destruction" that Jack wrought on Paul on a consistent basis?

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Huh. Weird.
> 
> Was it this kind of "destruction" that Jack wrought on Paul on a consistent basis?


From a birdseye view of their 4 matchups, Jack clearly had the better overall stats... but the games were split 2-2. In the 3 of those games I personally watched, Paul missed a lot of open shots that he usually buries. If posters want to claim that Jack has placed some sort of open shot vodoo/hex on Paul, heck I hope those skills translate into his pro game, but I wouldn't give too much credit on his actual D causing those misses.

here's the box from the first of those matchups... feel the destruction  

http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/012004aaa.html

STOMP


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Box Scores of all 4 GT/WF the last two years:

1/20/04

2/22/04

1/27/05

3/2/05


The combined stats from those 4 games? It's not even close, and the stats don't tell the story. Jack physically dominated Paul on both ends of the court in every game. Paul got into a lot of foul trouble because he couldn't keep Jack out of the lane, and was never on his game - heck, he only scored in double figures one of the four games. Georgia Tech was the lower ranked team in all four games, and yet won two of them (including a game where Paul blew a chance to win it in both regulation and OT, and then Jack iced it away in OT). 

03 Jack, Jarrett....... g *FG* 23-47 (49%) *3pt* 6-17 (35%) *FT* 22-26 *Reb* 15 *Points* 74 *As.*20 *T.O's* 13 

03 Paul, Chris......... g *FG* 8-34 (23%) *3pt.* 2-11 (18%) *FT* 15-20 *Reb* 7 *Points* 33 *As.* 23 *TO's* 9 

Jarrett Jack was pretty clearly the best college player of the two, despite the lack of media hype similar to that which surrounded Paul because of his potential and because he played in the triangle area (the mecca of college hoops). He hasn't reached that potential yet though, I think the jury is still out on him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

More assists, fewer turnovers. That's not evidence of Paul being destroyed.

Did Jack outplay Paul in those four games? Sure. Did he destroy him every game? Clearly not in their final matchup, no.

Most importantly: is four games even relevant? I'd say probably not, when you're considering how young these guys are and that the games too place over the course of two years.

Ed O.


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Chris Paul shot 4/11 in that final game and got his points at the foul line at the end of the game. He was a non-factor in that game as well. T. Downey hit 3-4 3's and Vytas Danalioauhsghas killed GT's weak frontcourt.

Seriously, get some gametape if you want to examine it. I'm not saying Paul isn't a good player or even a good prospect, just that in ACC country everyone knew that Jack owned him. Heck, even the WF fanboard made a running joke out of it for a while because it was so lopsided. When he finally broke double digits in a game against GT, there was a mock celebration.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

vadimivich said:


> Chris Paul shot 4/11 in that final game and got his points at the foul line at the end of the game. He was a non-factor in that game as well. T. Downey hit 3-4 3's and Vytas Danalioauhsghas killed GT's weak frontcourt.
> 
> Seriously, get some gametape if you want to examine it. I'm not saying Paul isn't a good player or even a good prospect, just that in ACC country everyone knew that Jack owned him. Heck, even the WF fanboard made a running joke out of it for a while because it was so lopsided. When he finally broke double digits in a game against GT, there was a mock celebration.


I always find it pretty weak when posters try to represent their opinions as those of the masses. I'm from ACC country. I saw those games. I think your opinion is only that. Jack is a good prospect (IMO) who had some of his best games against Paul who happened to have some of his worst games in those matchups. Shooters do occationally have off nights... I wouldn't count on a dead eye like CP continuing to miss the open looks and layups that I saw him chunking in those games.



> Jarrett Jack was pretty clearly the best college player of the two, despite the lack of media hype similar to that which surrounded Paul because of his potential and because he played in the triangle area (the mecca of college hoops). He hasn't reached that potential yet though, I think the jury is still out on him.


More silly hyperbole and bonus wacky theories... If you're serious about your suggestions that media hype drives where prospects are rated/drafted, I think that says plenty about where you're coming from. I'd love to hear you expand on how other prospects from outside of the triangle area were able to rise above their handicap and go high in the lotto... Andrew Bogut, Dwight Howard, and Yao Ming (the last 3 #1's) for instance, or how Jack's GTech alums Kenny Anderson and Stephon Marbury were able to go at the top of the lotto (maybe that was the NY media's doing :swammi: ) 

(IMO) NBA talent evaluators don't base their decisions on what Dicky V says or what some local NC newspaper writer cranks out, they watch the games in person and form opinions on their own. I refer you to the 2005 NBA Draft to demonstrate who they felt was clearly the better player/prospect. 

STOMP


----------



## vadimivich (Mar 29, 2004)

Eric Montross was drafted in the lottery, as was Trajan Langdon(!) and a ton of other "Big 4" ACC school titanic busts. William Avery was picked in the first round, pretty much because was a Duke PG.

Chris Paul I felt got a lot of T.J Ford syndrom - tons of fun to watch, a terrific talent, but somewhat overated production in college that led to a very high draft position. He may very well turn into a terrific NBA player (as could Ford if he can stay healthy, that's a nasty injury to have to go through), but lets not act like he really blew away college competition. He didn't play well in big games and he got smoked by the bigger more physical guards when he played them. Deron Williams, Jameer Nelson and Jarrett Jack all worked him over pretty good in college matchups. He never "lit up" another top tier PG prospect, not once - and that is a red flag to me entering the NBA that he needs to overcome.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

vadimivich said:


> He didn't play well in big games and he got smoked by the bigger more physical guards when he played them. Deron Williams, Jameer Nelson and Jarrett Jack all worked him over pretty good in college matchups. He never "lit up" another top tier PG prospect, not once - and that is a red flag to me entering the NBA that he needs to overcome.


geez how many times do you have to be proven wrong before you stop this silly bleep?

big game...
http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/032005aaa.html


big game vs #4 Duke against a bigger drafted PG...
http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2004-2005/wf020205.html


big game @ #20 Cincinnati...
http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2004-2005/wf012205.html

Nationally televised big game vs the eventual champs and the #5 pick in the draft...
http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2004-2005/wf011505.html

big game @ #25 Virginia...
http://wakeforestsports.collegesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/recaps/010205aaa.html

thats only half of last season. If my internet connection was faster I'd continue the list, but basically... you're welcome to your opinion, but I'm going to continue to side with the facts and the professionals who evaluate talent for a living.

STOMP


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Stomp,

Some of us ACC alums don't agree with all your :kiss: on Paul's achievements. That doesn't mean your wrong, just bias. Paul led Wake no where in the big dance for the entire time he was there. That's fact! Hodge took NCSTATE farther than Paul with almost no help. Are you going to say the the Pack was a better all around team than Wake too? Get over yourself!

Now back to Jack 

I think JJ will remind many of Stephan mixed with Kenny Anderson. That's a hell of a back up to have. 

In case you forgot STOMP, JJ is a Blazer now, might open your mind a little and see some of the great traits he has instead of bashing him for a player that said he did not even want to workout for the Blazers cause of Telfair.

On top of that wouldn't you want a player that causes Paul such fits that he has off night after off night playing against him? 

Hey Stomp? How about you email Nate, he's an ACC guy too, let him decide? :clap:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

YardApe said:


> Stomp,
> 
> Some of us ACC alums don't agree with all your :kiss: on Paul's achievements. That doesn't mean your wrong, just bias.


If I was biased towards my rooting interest, I'd be pretending that my opinion was that Jack was better then Paul. I'm of the opinion that lying in general is lame, and lying to oneself is downright pathetic. 

Posters who emphatically make statements based on their convoluted fallacies (like Jack being twice as strong as Paul), when the facts show just the opposite.... well sorry, but thats the sort of pathetic posturing I really can't stand. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

anyways, I hate to hit and run, but I'm out the door into the hills for the next week+ so... 

basically I've made my prediction as to who'll be better in the short term, but I'm sure we'll all be rooting for Telfair Webster Jack and ??? throughout their Blazer careers. I'm sure I'll be right here when the actual games happen if you want to bring this up again. 

Later

STOMP


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Mods,

If calling a poster a liar, pathetic and convoluted is allowed I don't think we need you guys anymore!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

YardApe said:


> If calling a poster a liar, pathetic and convoluted is allowed I don't think we need you guys anymore!


Where did STOMP do any of those things? 

A liar: he said he doesn't like lying, especially to himself. So he doesn't let bias affect his analysis.

Pathetic: he called the posturing pathetic, not a poster.

Convoluted: does one even call a person "convoluted"? And, if so, would it be an insult? He clearly said that the fallacy was convoluted. Which just means complicated or intricate.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I'm extremely convoluted and proud of it.

Dan


----------



## 22ryno (Mar 17, 2003)

Chris Paul is an excellent player. I believe he will be a better pro than Jack because he's a better passer, shooter, and ball handler. He also changes speeds well. Jack has been described as this big, strong point guard but he isn't very strong and is an average athlete. He will be a very good backup but some people are overating him.

Now Telfair and Paul is a different story. These guys have similar skills with Paul being a better shooter and Telfair being a little quicker. They are both feisty competitors but are both pass first point guards. I think they will have some good matchups and may even make a few all star games. I can't really decide which one is better though.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> I can't really decide which one is better though.


That's exactly the point I was getting at. On paper, the two would seem to possess very even abilities overall. It may take 2-3 years before we know which of them is the better player, and unless Webster turns out to be better than Smith, there's a very real chance of N.O.'s duo being better than ours, despite us passing on both of them.

But I should point out, I'm a huge Telfair fan and was ecstatic we got him. I didn't think we'd have a shot at him or Paul two years ago...

Dan


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I think a better comparison is Telfair/Webster vs. Jefferson/DWilliams.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I don't, because you're mixing positions (and areas of need), regardless of what you think of the individual players.

Dan


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

YardApe said:


> Mods,
> 
> If calling a poster a liar, pathetic and convoluted is allowed I don't think we need you guys anymore!


Better yet, how about if you actually find the posts where this happened and PM one of us like you are suppose to do?

Please review the Posting rules thread before you make statements like this.

I see nothing in this thread that breaks the rules.


----------

