# Rasheed Misses Practice



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

You guys know I don't like to report stuff like this, but Rasheed slept through practice today. No word yet on whether he'll be punished. Cheeks didn't seem happy about it though.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

I slept through breakfast. Details at 11.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)




----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fine him. Unless it's happened before recently, then consider holding him out of at least part of the game.

Ed O.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

What kind of punishment is expected for missing practice ? Suspension, fine, some time in Cheeks' doghouse with Bonzi ?...:whoknows:


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

What a great team mate.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm thinking at least a 5 game suspension and having Rasheed come to practice early during the suspension to sweep the court before practice, and oh yeah, having him wash my car and picking up my dry cleaning.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I slept through this post.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hap</b>!
> I slept through this post.


So Hap, are you saying this is no big deal?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> So Hap, are you saying this is no big deal?


no, I'm continuing the humor in this thread, by implying I fell asleep in my post.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Hopefully only 68 games of Sheed nonsense. Keep it up 'Just Ballin." I had feared that you might turn it around and fool our GM that you could change.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Just as Ed says... I agree

plus

make him answer any and all questions the media has for him the next 3 games


----------



## CatchNRelease (Jan 2, 2003)

*You Might Want Say This Is No Big Deal,*

and MAYBE it isn't. BUT, following on the heels of Wallace wearing Well's practice jersey, his 'sleeping through' practice could just as likely indicate something that surely is a big deal. The fact he wore Well's jersey, IMO clearly sends a message to the team that he sides with Well's....which is to say against Mo. To follow that up with skipping the next practice session, which followed his 3pt/1rb/7ast performance? Do the Wallace supporters among us really see this as nothing? Jus' stick'n up for his homey?

Time will tell, maybe. I'm not a big fan of Cheek's coaching ability, but it's not Wallace's place to decide how the team is run.

Go Blazers


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I just had a thought for an alternative way of "punishing" players for minor transgressions. Instead of a slap on the wrist so small that it goes unnoticed by the player, and stopping short of suspensions and name calling that serve little purpose other than to hurt the team ... why not dock a player their salary for the game(s) that would otherwise be suspensions, but still allow them to play? Basically say, you're not going to be paid for this game, but you're still an important part of the team and we want to see that your head and heart are in the right place.

If the player refuses, then you probably have deeper issues to deal with... In which case, a longer suspension may be in order and the player is worse off.

If the player agrees, then it probably indicates they are willing to shoulder at least some of the blame and move on. If they do so and play like a dog (intentionally?), then simply don't put them in the game.

It seems like it could work pretty well, with the worst that could happen being no worse than what is commonly done now. The only thing I don't know is if it would even be allowable under the CBA. They wouldn't be _required_ to play for no pay, but I'm sure someone would construe it that way...

Dan


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Personally, I think the wearing of Wells' practice jersey is a bigger deal than missing a practice... not by much, but it shows _active_ insubordination and even an attempt at creating an insurrection, rather than just laziness and _passive_ insubordination. 

I'd say Bonzi better get traded - and fast - or this season could head into a tailspin, fast. 

I don't know what I'd do, but I would bet Mo will not start Sheed and fine him, and that'll likely be the end of it.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I missed the wearing of Bonzi's jersey (haven't read the Oregonian articles the past couple days, is that where it was?), but aren't we jumping to conclusions just a bit, not knowing the intentions behind it? It's quite plausible that Rasheed was simply smoothing things over. Cheeks wants Bonzi in the fold and contributing in a positive manner. He's said so himself. What better way to get there than to have a teammate make Bonzi feel like part of the group again? It's the sort of thing that would not come off very well from a coach, but is very natural and un-forced from a teammate.

People really need to be more objective when it comes to Rasheed... This burning hatred of everything Wallace makes for more paranoia than is healthy. 

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> People really need to be more objective when it comes to Rasheed... This burning hatred of everything Wallace makes for more paranoia than is healthy.
> 
> Dan


This spectacular performance by Wallace tonight might help everyone's attitude towards him.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> This spectacular performance by Wallace tonight might help everyone's attitude towards him.


Got to admit, the guy had a nice 4th quarter. 

It's a shame we don't see him play that hard every quarter.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> This spectacular performance by Wallace tonight might help everyone's attitude towards him.


Yep. He led the team in rebounds (10 in only 29 minutes) took the game over at one point in the 4th offensively and played stifling defense on Jefferson at the end of the game.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Yep. He led the team in rebounds (10 in only 29 minutes) took the game over at one point in the 4th offensively and played stifling defense on Jefferson at the end of the game.
> 
> Ed O.


You're reply is to a post made when he was playing lazy. 1-9 from the floor with just 4 rebounds.

He had a great 4th quarter, but does that make up for the 17 minutes where he played like a slug?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> You're reply is to a post made when he was playing lazy. 1-9 from the floor with just 4 rebounds.


Maybe you should have some patience before you criticize, then. 



> He had a great 4th quarter, but does that make up for the 17 minutes where he played like a slug?


I don't think he played like a slug; I think his defense was pretty good, and 4 rebounds in 17 minutes isn't too bad. His shots were almost all in the key or against the clock and they just weren't falling.

But since the Blazers won I don't really care if he played like a slug 28 minutes and great for 1 minute.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Maybe you should have some patience before you criticize, then.
> 
> I don't think he played like a slug. But since the Blazers won I don't really care if he played like a slug 28 minutes and great for 1 minute.
> ...


You must be a big Allen Iverson fan. 

"It's just practice." 

There's a reason why Iverson is one of the top 3-5 talents in the league and he has zero championships. Maybe if he worked hard all the time, he'd have one. 

Ed, is it seriously too much to ask for the guy to work hard the entire game? I'm thinking of one play in particular where Jefferson just drove on Wallace and he didn't even move a muscle. That's pure old fashioned laziness. 

It doesn't matter if we won or not. When we're fighting for a playoff spot, you have to put together complete games. You can't turn it on when you feel like it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> You must be a big Allen Iverson fan.


Um. No.



> "It's just practice."


What does that have to do with how hard Wallace played in the game? I wasn't arguing that Rasheed ought not have been disciplined. I don't think that it was necessary to keep him out of the lineup, but that's Cheeks's call.



> There's a reason why Iverson is one of the top 3-5 talents in the league and he has zero championships. Maybe if he worked hard all the time, he'd have one.


I don't think he's one of the top 3-5 talents. Not even close. The reason he doesn't have a championship is because he's the best player on his team and he barely shoots over 40%. 



> Ed, is it seriously too much to ask for the guy to work hard the entire game? I'm thinking of one play in particular where Jefferson just drove on Wallace and he didn't even move a muscle. That's pure old fashioned laziness.


He didn't move a muscle? Please. Everyone gets beat off the dribble occasionally, and when Rasheed's guarding someone 3 inches shorter it's going to happen more often than average.

And considering Jefferson only made ONE field goal all game, I don't think you can seriously argue that one drive is indicative of Wallace's defensive efforts tonight.



> It doesn't matter if we won or not. When we're fighting for a playoff spot, you have to put together complete games. You can't turn it on when you feel like it.


Huh?

It doesn't matter if we won or not? Effort is all that matters?

Did they change the rules so that the lottery spots are given to slackers, rather than teams that win the fewest games?

For you or me to seriously judge effort is not very fruitful, because we simply don't have the experience to judge, the knowledge of what defensive or offensive play is called, and the patience to watch the game more than once (or occasionally twice).

Wins and losses, on the other hand, are easy to judge, and if Rasheed's supposedly being lazy in a win it's just not that big of a deal to me. I'd rather have that than perceived laziness in a loss any day.

Ed O.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Give it up Ed, you're arguing with hatred.  No one can win that debate.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> Give it up Ed, you're arguing with hatred.  No one can win that debate.
> 
> Dan


Look dude. I don't hate anything about any basketball player who has ever lived. Hate is a word that I reserve for truly horrific things. I hate skinheads. I hate prejudice. I hate cold blooded murder. I hate that people are starving on the streets of Portland. I hate corporations who poison our environment. 

How do you get the balls big enough to compare those things to my asking Wallace to work hard? If you can do that with a straight face, your priorities are shot. 

How is it 'hate' to expect a guy who makes 17 million per year to bust his *** for an entire 48 minutes?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Huh?
> 
> It doesn't matter if we won or not? Effort is all that matters?
> ...


If he'd have played hard the entire game, we'd have won by 20 points. If he'd have played that hard the entire season, we'd probably be 12-3. So you're actually making my argument for me. If he put in the effort, we'd be winning...and like you say, that's all that matters.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> How do you get the balls big enough to compare those things to my asking Wallace to work hard?


Sorry to disappoint, but it was actually you who made that comparison... I merely threw a word out there, a word which apparently bothers you almost as much, and just as irrationally, as Rasheed does.

Dan


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dkap</b>!
> 
> Sorry to disappoint, but it was actually you who made that comparison... I merely threw a word out there, a word which apparently bothers you almost as much, and just as irrationally, as Rasheed does.
> 
> Dan


How did I make a comparison to those things? 

Did I say that I hated Rasheed Wallace? Did I say that Rasheed Wallace is like Enron? Did I say that Rasheed Wallace is as bad as murder?

Nope. I said he's lazy and if he showed up for 48 minutes we'd be a better team.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> If he'd have played hard the entire game, we'd have won by 20 points. If he'd have played that hard the entire season, we'd probably be 12-3. So you're actually making my argument for me. If he put in the effort, we'd be winning...and like you say, that's all that matters.


Your argument is specious, at best.

Rasheed Wallace HAS been working hard during games. I don't know why you think that he has not, let alone that if he had worked harder the team would magically be 12-3.

Argue that he's not working hard during a game in which we lose? I can understand that.

Pile on him when the team wins? Doesn't make much sense, but I guess I can see it.

Claim that if he were only busting his hump all season the team would somehow have the third-best record in the NBA? That's laughable to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Your argument is specious, at best.
> 
> Rasheed Wallace HAS been working hard during games. I don't know why you think that he has not, let alone that if he had worked harder the team would magically be 12-3.
> ...


Laughable? Did you watch the 4th quarter? 

Wallace was everywhere. He absolutely DEMANDED the basketball on the offensive end. When the ball came off the rim, you KNEW he was going to get it. He was playing great defense. he was a monster. He was living up to his potential and making everyone understand why some say he's a top 5-10 talent.

But where was that in the 2nd and 3rd quarters?

I know you could see a difference between the 4th quarter and earlier in the game.

I understand that guys will have an off night once in a while. I'm not saying he should get 9 pts and 6 boards every quarter. 

But he can play with that same intensity. Ruben Patterson does it with far less talent. Why can't Wallace? 

If he played with that kind of intensity for 40 minutes per night, 12-3 would not be out of the question.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> If he played with that kind of intensity for 40 minutes per night, 12-3 would not be out of the question.


Hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but as we get more removed from the games and we try to argue what would have happened if a variable as amorphous as "effort" were increased is a tough game to play, and it's laughable to me because your assertion just doesn't conform to how the season has gone. 

If Rasheed has played at a low effort level the entire season, and he upped his intensity level every single minute he was in the game, I could see an increase in Portland's record. I don't know if it would be 4 wins, but I could see an increase.

The primary problem I see is that you're operating from a false assumption: that Rasheed has been loafing it. He hasn't been. In the early parts of this game, he looked out of sorts, no question... I think it's because he hasn't come off the bench since the 00-01 season (and he only did it 4 times out of 79 then).

Against the Wizards, I can see how one would take his lack of shots and rebounds as a lack of effort. I don't know if it was because he was or wasn't trying, though.

Against Utah, I think he played hard. He didn't play that well, but he played hard. Against Philly, he was trying hard. He's from Philly, as you know, and he always plays hard against them. Against Dallas, he played both well and hard. Against Seattle and NO I'm not sure that any level of increased effort would have made a difference (and I didn't see the Hornets game, so I don't know if his 6 offensive rebounds were luck or the result of hustle). I think he played hard against Golden State (tied for team lead in rebounds, got off 14 shots).

That's all 7 of their losses, and I don't see where we would pick up those 4 wins if Rasheed were only playing harder than you think he did...

That you think he played less than hard in any of the Blazers wins (like tonight) doesn't really effect their record, because whether we won by 20 (as you claim we would have) or 4 is of no consequence. Under ideal circumstances, Portland would get to play their bench in a blowout, but since the team was reduced to 10 players with RP's unavailability there really wasn't much of a bench to play (I guess Woods, Carroll, Stepania and RBB could've played more, but they don't play again until Wednesday so there should be no fatigue issues).

I understand you want Rasheed to play harder, but don't you recognize that your focus on him as the person who's not playing hard enough is coloring your judgment of his production and efficacy levels? The mere fact that he's not reaching his production potential doesn't take away from his actual production...

Ed O.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

My sources tell me that Sheed ate a staggering amount of turkey yesterday. He passed out after 5 hours at the dinner table, and then his children did the best they could to drag him to the living room couch. Rasheed continued sleeping until late into the nextafternoon, waking with a start and realizing that he'd missed the morning shoot around. Cheeks pulled him from the starting lineup and Sheed subbed into the game in the 2nd quarter, still groggy from the turkey. Even after a quick halftime doze, Sheed couldn't get his legs under him. In the 4th quarter however, Sheed WOKE up, and the Nets never had a chance.

I expect the story to break at the Oregonian any moment now.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> It's laughable because the logic has a hole in it a mile wide.
> 
> If Rasheed has played at a low effort level the entire season, and he upped his intensity level every single minute he was in the game, I could see an increase in Portland's record. I don't know if it would be 4 wins, but I could see an increase.
> ...


In the 4th quarter of tonight's game, Wallace's effort level was far higher than I've seen in any other game all season. I feel he was lazy early in this game. You're willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was out of sorts from coming fof the bench. Fine, I can deal with that. 

But how can you possibly say that he's been giving similar effort all season long? I am not saying this is the first game in which he's worked hard. He's had flashes of brilliance in other games. I'm not saying he's not an efficient player when he's out there. I'm saying that if he demanded the ball the way he did in the 4th quarter of tonight's game and if he tenaciously went after rebounds the way he did in tonight's game, we'd be a better team.

Since you're so fixated on the 12-3 record that I suggested was possible. 

I believe we could have won the Utah, Washington, Golden State and New Orleans games if he's have played the entire game with the effort he brought in the 4th tonight.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NateBishop3</b>!
> You guys know I don't like to report stuff like this, but Rasheed slept through practice today. No word yet on whether he'll be punished. Cheeks didn't seem happy about it though.


*Nate -*

Don't feel like you have to apologize for presenting the truth. By that I mean presenting the whole truth - both the good and the bad. You do this very well. I want to hear (and expect to hear) about things like this. When the Blazer players make a mistake of this sort, I want to hear about it. 

My issue with Canzano, etc. is that the whole truth never comes out because when all the negative and some of the positive is reported, it's unbalanced.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*Wallace could win every game for Portland*

If he tried.

I sat back last night shaking my head at how he could just totally
disappear - again.

I need more than 1 quarter from him to earn my respect.
Fourth quarter play was normal wasn't it???
Isn't that what you would expect from a highly paid player??


"The mere fact that he's not reaching his production potential doesn't take away from his actual production..."
Sorry Ed..
Don't agree at all on this one.
He has been playing at such a low level that usually we are happy if he gets 10 points and maybe 1-2 rebounds.
And why is he not "reaching" his potential?


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

> Fourth quarter play was normal wasn't it???


Normal by what standard? Dominant all-star caliber play? I'd hardly call that normal.



> Isn't that what you would expect from a highly paid player??


Um, no. Rasheed's salary has nothing to do with his level of play. It is related in theory, but just because he's paid a lot doesn't mean he'll produce more than someone paid much less. Same goes for any other player in the league. All it means is he's overpaid. Doesn't even mean he's an underachiever. End of story.

Dan


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Wallace could win every game for Portland*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> 
> "The mere fact that he's not reaching his production potential doesn't take away from his actual production..."
> Sorry Ed..
> ...


I not sure what you're talking about. Rasheed's only had two games all season where he's had fewer than six rebounds.

Who's happy when he gets 1-2 rebounds? And how often do you think that happens (we can do something of a reality check that might reduce your Sheed dislike).



> And why is he not "reaching" his potential?


Who cares? My point is that production, not potential, matters to me when judging a player... unless we're talking about trade value or salary negotiations, where potential and such DO come into play.

Ed O.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*well these are are what you described as an off night for Kenyon*

Martin: 6-17 fg, 12 points, 7 reb, 2 blk, 2 stl.

Just as good as Rasheed ..
I can't get all warm and fuzzy about Rasheed playing well in the 
4th quarter after not making it to practice to discuss the evening game.


Save your reality check.We see different realities, Ed.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*you say..*

"Dominant all-star caliber play? I'd hardly call that normal."

Wow..now he is back to all star caliber ??
Guess his 3 point game,and quarters 2 -3 last night are still too
fresh in my mind.
And his inability to get those must have rebounds .
Remember just the other night?
The 1 point loss?
All we needed was that BIG rebound. He was standing outside. Standing.
How many times this year has he looked or acted like he deserved
all star recognition??


Good lord,he is way under consideration for all star.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*just curious Ed*

what's your opinion on him sleeping in and missing practice?
Guess he must have been tired out after that 3 point game..huh?

we really don't see eye to eye on him..no problem with me that you don't agree.

it doesn't need any arguments either direction.
I don't need to be told I need a reality check..etc.

It's fine..

this seems awfully accurate to me.

"His 7.7 rebounds are misleading because he's also averaging 40-plus minutes and anything less than a rebound every four minutes is sub-par for a power forward. He's also only shooting a free throw every 10 minutes, which diminishes the value of his 17.8 scoring average."
ESPN


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: just curious Ed*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> what's your opinion on him sleeping in and missing practice?
> Guess he must have been tired out after that 3 point game..huh?
> 
> ...


You said that "usually we are happy if he gets 10 points and maybe 1-2 rebounds."

But that's ludicrous, because Rasheed's only had a single game of 1 rebound this season and no games with 2.

You might need a reality check if you think that Rasheed is consistently only pulling down 1 or 2 rebounds.




> this seems awfully accurate to me.
> 
> "His 7.7 rebounds are misleading because he's also averaging 40-plus minutes and anything less than a rebound every four minutes is sub-par for a power forward. He's also only shooting a free throw every 10 minutes, which diminishes the value of his 17.8 scoring average."
> ESPN


That seems accurate to you because it reinforces your world view (which seems to feature Rasheed doing a terrible job on the rebounding glass, when in fact that's not the case).

The portion of that article you quote has been hammered in a variety of ways by several people on this board, but let me just list a couple OBVIOUS ways it's wrong or irrelevant:

-- he's playing small forward this year, not power forward. Saying his rebounding numbers are "misleading" because they are less than what power forwards get is asinine.

-- his career rebounding average is only 6.8, so acting like 7.7 is somehow a step down from what he's done historically is wrong.

-- his ppg is "diminished" because he gets to the line only once every 10 minutes? That makes little or no sense, because whether Wallace is getting his points from the 3 point line, regular field goals or free throw line doesn't really make a difference... it's still 17.8 ppg. 

Bucher's article was obviously the result of Rasheed refusing to do an interview with him.

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

1. Players have offnights but I do have an issue with a 40minute per game player having two out of 16? games with 1 and 3 rebounds. To me that says lack of effort for those two nights.

2. Sheed is playing a completely different role this year (as has been pointed out) so actually I find his 7.7 rebounds a game outstanding. As a small forward, many times his role is to keep his (smaller, quicker) player from running around stealing rebounds (boxing out) from Zach and Dale. Another thing is that when the shot goes up, there are many, many more times in which Sheed finds himself away from the basket guarding a perimeter player. Don't forget, he's not guarding power forwards anymore who tend to play around the hoop.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Martin: 6-17 fg, 12 points, 7 reb, 2 blk, 2 stl. Just as good as Rasheed ...


...on a bad night... except of course that Wallace regularly shuts down the opponent's best 1-3 front court player which doesn't show in the stats, only in the W's. He "played hard", stepped up down the stretch, PORTLAND WON, and some of the same ol' folks are still scurrying about looking for scraps to complain about Rasheed with... go figure. I know that Tim Duncan had a statistical night at least that bad last night, do the Spurs fans have a faction wanting his head too? 

OK just for the record, what is Portland's record when Sheed has had one of his two Techs or missed a practice this season? I know they've won on at least two of those occations... could it be that it's not worth going through the whole excruciating rigamaroll every time there is a minor bump in the road? Missing a practice is bad and not OK, but as far as I know this mistake is being handled correctly and Wallace and the Trailblazers will survive. 

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> Good lord,he is way under consideration for all star.


Doesn't Jeff Van Gundy have one of the 14 votes?

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*well it sure is an interesting topic that's for sure.*

I guess Wallace will see what he's worth when he is traded.
I would suspect even the diehards here are surprized that they are not exactly knocking down the door to get him.

I feel it's because with all the talk about how good he supposedly
is,on any given night other less than talented players step up
and beat the Blazers and Rasheed,rather easily.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: well it sure is an interesting topic that's for sure.*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I guess Wallace will see what he's worth when he is traded.
> I would suspect even the diehards here are surprized that they are not exactly knocking down the door to get him.


The Diehards and the DieEZs have no idea whats up with real trade rumors right? We don't know if Sheed's truely on the block, not on the block, or could only be had for an overwhelming offer. Assuming that his not being moved is a result of no takers being interested is only because posters are assuming they know whats truely up, which of course we don't. Nash might have his heart set on the cap relief of Sheed's deal expiring would provide, or he might have something else in mind... I'm sure you know this though  

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

For a little added flame for all the Spurs fans wanting to run Tim Duncan out of town... In tonight's Warriors v Spurs game, Tim Duncan shoved 26 year veteran ref Jack Nees in the back during the 3rd quarter causing him to fall down. Nees T'd him up and then Duncan stared at him for a long time, occationally gesturing and opening his mouth... more details later as the controversy grows groWS and GROWS...:grinning: 

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> Nees T'd him up and then Duncan stared at him for a long time, occationally gesturing and opening his mouth... more details later as the controversy grows groWS and GROWS...:grinning:


Duncan made contact with an official enough to warrant a T, but he didn't get ejected? I gotta see how he managed to pull that off...

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> Duncan made contact with an official enough to warrant a T, but he didn't get ejected? I gotta see how he managed to pull that off...
> ...


Maybe Tim Duncan hasn't made a habit out of berating the officials after every play where he feels he was fouled so that the officials don't dislike him from the moment he steps on the court.

Just speculation.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> Maybe Tim Duncan hasn't made a habit out of berating the officials after every play where he feels he was fouled so that the officials don't dislike him from the moment he steps on the court.
> 
> Just speculation.


I'm not saying you're wrong, but should it really matter whether a player has a "rep" when the officials make their calls? Especially when a player pushes a ref down?

Either the play was accidental (happens all the time in the NFL, for example) and there's no T, or it's intentional and it should have been an ejection and maybe even a suspension. I don't see how the baby can be split fairly.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but should it really matter whether a player has a "rep" when the officials make their calls? Especially when a player pushes a ref down?
> 
> Either the play was accidental (happens all the time in the NFL, for example) and there's no T, or it's intentional and it should have been an ejection and maybe even a suspension. I don't see how the baby can be split fairly.
> ...


No. It shouldn't matter. But refs are human. 

I believe Sheed's behavior is much better the last 2 years and I believe the refs are cutting him way more slack than they have in the last several years. 

BTW, here's what the ESPN recap has to say about the Duncan incident.

"Duncan was called for an unusual technical foul in the third quarter. After a jump ball with 3:35 left in the period, referee Jack Nies got tangled up with a player, and couldn't get out of the San Antonio free-throw circle. Duncan cut to the high post and put both hands on Nies to clear some room, and Nies tumbled to the floor. He immediately bounced up and called the technical foul."


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> "Duncan was called for an unusual technical foul in the third quarter. After a jump ball with 3:35 left in the period, referee Jack Nies got tangled up with a player, and couldn't get out of the San Antonio free-throw circle. Duncan cut to the high post and put both hands on Nies to clear some room, and Nies tumbled to the floor. He immediately bounced up and called the technical foul."


This sounds to me like a terrible call. Should have been no call and if they suspend him, it's doubling the injustice.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Either the play was accidental (happens all the time in the NFL, for example) and there's no T, or it's intentional and it should have been an ejection and maybe even a suspension. I don't see how the baby can be split fairly.


The play in question was a dead ball inbounds play. Duncan cleared referee Jack Nees out of his way by shoving him between the shoulders from behind. Though it didn't seem to me to be malicious, it also seemed he could have done a much better job avoiding him if he would have tried to. He was lucky to only recieve one Tech IMO.

STOMP


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>STOMP</b>!
> 
> 
> The play in question was a dead ball inbounds play. Duncan cleared referee Jack Nees out of his way by shoving him between the shoulders from behind. Though it didn't seem to me to be malicious, it also seemed he could have done a much better job avoiding him if he would have tried to. He was lucky to only recieve one Tech IMO.
> ...


But this was in the middle of a play. If the ref is out of position in the NFL or NHL, that's their own fault. If they get knocked down, they better learn their lesson and stay in the proper position.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> But this was in the middle of a play. If the ref is out of position in the NFL or NHL, that's their own fault. If they get knocked down, they better learn their lesson and stay in the proper position.


Dude I saw the play. In no way was Nees out of position. Duncan shoved the ref hard from behind to clear his way, sending him sprawling head first to the floor. It was not pretty. The Tech issued wan't some sort of injustice, it was deserved. Players always have to avoid the officials, and coming on a dead ball play makes it especially wrong. Mistakes happen though, even to the best of us. 

I'm sure if it had been Wallace, instead of downplaying it ESPN would have had a new lead story. 

STOMP


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*stomp*

That was uncalled for.
I never in any way said I knew anything about a trade.
YOUR FRICKING LITTLE WINK after that comment is nauseating.

Who knows if he will be traded??
Do you think for a minute that all your comments are taken by the 
gang here as gospel???

I can only hope that his craggly tooth open mouth ugly face is 
gone next year.
And his little punk bro. Bonzi.

I am entitled to my opinion here.
You to yours.
If you make it personal,I am ready.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> That was uncalled for.
> I never in any way said I knew anything about a trade.
> YOUR FRICKING LITTLE WINK after that comment is nauseating.


Oh really?



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I guess Wallace will see what he's worth when he is traded.
> I would suspect even the diehards here are surprized that they are not exactly knocking down the door to get him.


It's not only my opinion that Portland may choose not to trade him, it's just a fact. Pointing to a lack of trade rumors as a reflection of a lack of percieved worth throughout the league is a big stretch too since us mere fans have no clue whatsoever of whats truely up with trade rumors. There are very few senerios that make any sense with 17 mil (or so) needing to be coming back. That you're made sick by a smiley posted after a couple of facts is confusing to me. I was trying to clear up something you said where I felt you misspoke, and somehow I'm on a personal attack... 

Whatever...have a nice day.

STOMP


----------



## DariusMiles23 (Aug 29, 2003)

You kno what i thought after i heard that Sheed missed the practice? I said who cares. As long as he plays Basketball and does his job its ok. Anyways, I would rather Sheed miss the practice and then play like he did in the 4th then him go to shootaround. Just let the man be jesus. I bet some of us have overslept for a job interview once or were late to work. Its the same thing. He is a human just like us. Damn you guys.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: stomp*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> 
> I can only hope that his craggly tooth open mouth ugly face is
> gone next year.
> And his little punk bro. Bonzi.


I think Rasheed has a great smile. And in my own heterosexual way (despite that one dream with Vlade Divac), I think that Rasheed is a handsome man.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: well it sure is an interesting topic that's for sure.*



> Originally posted by <b>jackiejackal</b>!
> I guess Wallace will see what he's worth when he is traded.
> I would suspect even the diehards here are surprized that they are not exactly knocking down the door to get him.


I would be very surprised if the Blazers weren't getting a lot of offers for Rasheed - and if the number of offers didn't increase as the trading deadline approaches.

The fact is that none of us knows how many and what kind of offers Nash has gotten and will get for Rasheed. But on the road towards fiscal responsibility, Rasheed's contract means a lot to the Blazers. It also means a lot potentially to pretty much any team over the luxury tax threshhold and with a couple of long-term contracts that they wouldn't mind passing along to Portland. And that's completely disregarding any contribution that he can make on the court - which I would argue would be significant for any team in the league.

Granted, I don't know if teams are knocking down the door to try to get Rasheed. But on the other hand, you don't know that they aren't, do you?


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BlazerShorty990</b>!
> You kno what i thought after i heard that Sheed missed the practice? I said who cares. As long as he plays Basketball and does his job its ok. Anyways, I would rather Sheed miss the practice and then play like he did in the 4th then him go to shootaround. Just let the man be jesus. I bet some of us have overslept for a job interview once or were late to work. Its the same thing. He is a human just like us. Damn you guys.


I'd put even more emphasis on the "who cares" when you consider that this is the first time (at least in my elephant memory) that we've heard of Rasheed missing a practice as a Trail Blazer.


----------



## jackiejackal (Nov 7, 2002)

*I BELIEVE HE WOULD BE LONG GONE IF ANYTHING DECENT HAD COME BY*

But then again,most of the good ones are long gone this year.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Just to be fair to Sheed.....Dale has missed a practice or two...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Re: stomp*



> Originally posted by <b>SLAM</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Rasheed has a great smile. And in my own heterosexual way (despite that one dream with Vlade Divac), I think that Rasheed is a handsome man.


nice! 

My take (cause people care)...

Rasheed missing the shootaround - not good. 

Cheeks benching him to start the game - good.

Sheed coming in and having a great 4th - good.

Blazers winning - good.

Rasheed continuously missing practices/shootarounds - not good.

Likelihood of that happening - not good.


----------

