# Send Webster back to high school?



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Forget the NBDL. Martell Webster needs to head back to high school as fast as he can run. I don't think I've ever seen a player regress so much in one year. The guy can't hit a shot to save his life, even when he's wide open. You could send both teams to the other side of the court and give him a wide-open layup and he'd miss it. That's how bad it's gotten. In fact, he's making Travis Outlaw look "polished." 

If this regression keeps up, he's going to be so bad next year the league is going to step in and have an "intervention" for him.

Before that happens, the Blazers should send him back up to Seattle to redo his senior year of high school, because I don't think he could make a college team right now.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

I really feel for him, because he looks so frustrated. His shot mechanics look perfect, but the shots are way off. You might've gotten too giddy with the use of hyperbole, but you're right. Confidence seems to be the biggest problem. I've also noticed that he has sort of a hitch, a slight hesitation when he shoots. Maybe that has something to do with it. 

I'll give him some time, because he's show me some nice flashes of brilliance at times. He has all the tools necessary to succeed. It'll take some patience.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

LOL at 

Telfair 
Webster 

over 

Jefferson 
Paul


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

He had a couple of breakout games, then he -- wait for it -- INJURED HIS SHOULDER. That, by the way, is not necessarily an injury he is 100% recovered from. When he hits a rough patch like that -- especially when you aren't even old enough to legally drink -- it will impact his confidence.

Has he made the progress expected? Nope. I will easily admit that.

Is he the worst thing ever, a lost cause, beyond help and generally the biggest waste of space the Blazers have ever seen? Not even close.

Do any of us know if he's 100% recovered from his shoulder? No! He could very well still be feeling the effects of it.

But again ... the hyperbole if Internet message boards frustrates me. Threads like this are invariably started after almost every single loss ... do you expect all the Blazers to play perfect all the time? Honestly? I mean, I understand your expectations, but don't just cut him some slack -- ease up on the anger just a little bit.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Not making excuses but perhaps the shoulder injury he received in Sacramento game was worse than we were led to believe and is still an annoyance?

Until he went out with that injury, he looked pretty good and active in the Kings game including, if I recall correctly, garnering 8 rebounds.

Keep in mind he is very young and this is his second year. He is by no means consistent but he's not bad, as some would lead us to believe.

Gramps...


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

wastro said:


> He had a couple of breakout games, then he -- wait for it -- INJURED HIS SHOULDER. That, by the way, is not necessarily an injury he is 100% recovered from. When he hits a rough patch like that -- especially when you aren't even old enough to legally drink -- it will impact his confidence.
> 
> Has he made the progress expected? Nope. I will easily admit that.
> 
> ...


It's not anger, believe me. I've been pulling for Martell ever since he was drafted. I'm just amazed that the guy has fallen off the face of the earth, at least in NBA terms. What looked like a rough but promising rookie year has turned into a horror show of a sophomore year. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a single signature offensive move. The only thing he can do (and he can't even do that anymore) is hit a post-up jump shot. And now that he can't do that, he is really worthless on the court. Every so often he'll grab a rebound, but otherwise he's just running up and down the court contributing nothing.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Always wondered what was so special about this kid. I was shocked he was drafted so high.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

wastro said:


> When he hits a rough patch like that -- especially when you aren't even old enough to legally drink -- it will impact his confidence.


I think you've got it. I'm going to buy him a bottle, maybe he'll feel more confident after having a snort.

barfo


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> It's not anger, believe me. I've been pulling for Martell ever since he was drafted. I'm just amazed that the guy has fallen off the face of the earth, at least in NBA terms. What looked like a rough but promising rookie year has turned into a horror show of a sophomore year. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have a single signature offensive move. The only thing he can do (and he can't even do that anymore) is hit a post-up jump shot. And now that he can't do that, he is really worthless on the court. Every so often he'll grab a rebound, but otherwise he's just running up and down the court contributing nothing.


Okay this post is A LITTLE more rational. 

He's inconsistent. There are definitely games where he doesn't do anything, but there are games where he's pulling down rebounds and being active inside.

And you can't argue about his lack of a signature offensive move, but one thing you do have to realize is that he does have a low basketball IQ. In high school, he was so much better than his competition that he didn't have to develop the well-rounded game. He could shoot over the defenders, no problem. But now, he has to learn how to create his own shot, be more assertive and find other ways to contribute. He's finding his way. It just isn't happening overnight.

He's like Travis in the sense that he's going to take time to develop. Will it be worth it? Who knows. But I don't think you can say that he's going to be worthless in two or three or four years on the basis on rough stretches in the season of a 20-year-old.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> LOL at
> 
> Telfair
> Webster
> ...



LOL at morrison over aldridge
LOL at shelden williams etc. over roy

lose some win some


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

wastro said:


> Okay this post is A LITTLE more rational.
> 
> He's inconsistent. There are definitely games where he doesn't do anything, but there are games where he's pulling down rebounds and being active inside.
> 
> ...



Exactly.

Besides, you're not going to get anything of value back if you trade him now anyway.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Big summer for Martell. He needs to do SOMETHING to find himself, and come back with a sliver of confidence because the guy is lacking it right now. But to give you some perspective, here are the guys who are his age in the NBA right now:

Monta Ellis
Gerald Green
Andrew Bynum
Ersan Ilyasova
Tyrus Thomas
CJ Miles
Shawne Williams
Louis Williams
Andray Blatche
Yaroslav Korolev

I know he was a #6 pick, but the company he keeps, besides Monta Ellis, is similarly mediocre right now. When the rookies of his birth year (J. Wright, McRoberts, Hansbrough...) come out next year, I'm guessing they're going to come onto the stage with a bit more punch, so he'll need to step it up a bit.


----------



## Mr. Chuck Taylor (Aug 2, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Big summer for Martell. He needs to do SOMETHING to find himself, and come back with a sliver of confidence because the guy is lacking it right now. But to give you some perspective, here are the guys who are his age in the NBA right now:
> 
> Monta Ellis
> Gerald Green
> ...


Yes, Martell is young, but that is the only thing positive you can say about him at this point. I really can't think of one single thing that he does well. Hopefully he will turn it around, and he certainly has time, but he's clearly on the fast track to becoming a bust.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Rules the league should implement:

1. Allow a team to send a player into the NBDL whenever they want to, ala MLB.

2. Allow a team to choose when the clock starts ticking on a player's contract. Until then they can get something that's more than a DLeague salary but less than the million's he's earning now.

I get the feeling that Portland would have been much better served leaving Martell down in the NBDL with more minutes. It's clear he has a ton of talent, he just needs enough touches so that he can get his rhythm down.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Rules the league should implement:
> 
> 1. Allow a team to send a player into the NBDL whenever they want to, ala MLB.
> 
> ...


They can still send Martell to the NBDL if they want.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> They can still send Martell to the NBDL if they want.


Yeah, but at his salary it doesn't make sense to.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Mr. Chuck Taylor said:


> Yes, Martell is young, but that is the only thing positive you can say about him at this point.


Well, he's polite and he probably has good table manners.

barfo


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Forget the NBDL. Martell Webster needs to head back to high school as fast as he can run. I don't think I've ever seen a player regress so much in one year. The guy can't hit a shot to save his life, even when he's wide open. You could send both teams to the other side of the court and give him a wide-open layup and he'd miss it. That's how bad it's gotten. In fact, he's making Travis Outlaw look "polished."
> 
> If this regression keeps up, he's going to be so bad next year the league is going to step in and have an "intervention" for him.
> 
> Before that happens, the Blazers should send him back up to Seattle to redo his senior year of high school, because I don't think he could make a college team right now.



Your over-reacting..mmmmkay?

If you look at his stats, he hasn't regressed from last year. He's actually slightly better with slightly more minutes. The one glaring difference is that his free-throw percentage is way down, which shows his problem is mental, not physical. Our expectations are higher, which may be why he appears to be doing so poorly. Clearly he shouldn't have been drafted as high as he was, but it's completely moronic to get this down on a guy so young. 

Look at Travis. This is his FOURTH year in the NBA and it's the first year he's looked like he actually belongs in it. Like Webster, he's been a project. But he's still young, YOUNGER THAN BRANDON ROY in fact by a few months. You can imagine how much younger Webster is.

The good news is that the guys we drafted out of high-school will start to come into their own the same time our current rookies do. Add Zach, Joel, and Jack to that and we'll have A LOT of talent peeking at around the same time. 

In other words, let's not get all melo-dramatic after each and every loss.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> I know he was a #6 pick, but the company he keeps, besides Monta Ellis, is similarly mediocre right now. When the rookies of his birth year (J. Wright, McRoberts, Hansbrough...) come out next year, I'm guessing they're going to come onto the stage with a bit more punch, so he'll need to step it up a bit.


Monta Ellis - 2nd round (10th pick)
Gerald Green - 1st round (18th pick)
Andrew Bynum - 1st round (10th pick)
Ersan Ilyasova - 2nd round (6th pick)
Tyrus Thomas - 1st round (4th pick) 
CJ Miles - 2nd round (4th pick)
Shawne Williams - 1st round (17th pick) 
Louis Williams - 2nd round (15th pick)
Andray Blatche - 2nd round (19th pick) 
Yaroslav Korolev - 1st round (12th pick) 

1/2 the guys listed are 2nd round picks that will be pleasant surprise if they even develop into bench players. Bynum and Thomas are the only other top 10 picks and they are much further along than him.

Martell has enough chances at this point. He doesn't have the handles to create his own shot and his field goal percentage stinks. We should cut our losses as soon as his contract is up and keep searching for the SF of the future.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

ProZach said:


> Look at Travis. This is his FOURTH year in the NBA and it's the first year he's looked like he actually belongs in it. Like Webster, he's been a project.


And after 4 years what do we have with TO? An inconsistent,athletic player that still makes stupid decision on the court. 4 years of grooming and he's a deep rotation player. Let's not make the same mistake with Martell. 

Look at what happens when we draft actual players that spent time in college (Roy and LaMarcus). They contribute right away, show basketball IQ and have the fans excited for the future.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

I wrote a post on how badly he sucked a few weeks ago and was chastized. But his suckation has been apparant to me all year. He's really a handicap for the Blazers when he's on the court. He's had a few very good outings this year, where we've seen glimpses of what I hope is his future. But usually, he is terrible. He plays poor defense and is constantly giving up offensive rebounds, he simply stands around on offense, waiting for someone to give him an outside shot, which has been very streaky this year.

I too was very tired of drafting high school players and having to go through years of them sucking not knowing if they were ever going to develope. So in a way, I was glad when the league implemented the no high schooler rule.

We've spent 4 years hoping Travis would bloosom into good player, but he still looks like a poor man's junk yard dog. I think we made a big mistake in not trading him this year.

This offseason I think the Blazers should re-sign Outlaw, and package him, Webster and Jack and try to sucker something out of someone. Then hopefully resign Blake to backup Rodriguez.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Big summer for Martell. He needs to do SOMETHING to find himself, and come back with a sliver of confidence because the guy is lacking it right now. But to give you some perspective, here are the guys who are his age in the NBA right now:
> 
> Monta Ellis
> Gerald Green
> ...


Actually he is only the same age as Thomas, Louis Williams and Blatche. He will be the same age as CJ Miles, once he turns 20 on the 18th.

Everyone else on that list is either 19 or 21. Ellis and Green spent five years in highschool, and Tyrus Thomas was sidelined his true freshman season with a shoulder injury. Maybe it was a hip injury, but I'm 99% sure it was a shoulder injury. Last year he was a redshirt freshman. And is 21.

One of them turns 20 in May, I can't remember who. The rest don't start turning 20 until the end of summer, I believe. With Bynum turning 20 at the end of October, making him the youngest. I think. I don't want to go back and look.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

This just shows the exact reason why Stern and company decided to raise the age minimum for entering the NBA at 19. The HS talent level is so limited lately with very few absolute stars and just proves that College experience paves the way for better offensive/defensive overall talent. I dislike HS stars since it has proven that Telfair, Webster, and others have not strided so easily in the league and its taking them 2-4 years to be productive and consistent. Look what Roy/Aldridge has been bringing to the team. I praise college talent because they take the effort to write comical , intelligent, and creative blogs! :yay:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Outlaw was a #25 pick - Martell #6.

Not a very good comparison.

It makes it worse that we traded down and still reached. Essentially we traded #3 for Jarret Jack and someone who probably would have been available at #20.

Oh-blah-dee...


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Big summer for Martell. He needs to do SOMETHING to find himself, and come back with a sliver of confidence because the guy is lacking it right now. But to give you some perspective, here are the guys who are his age in the NBA right now:
> 
> Monta Ellis
> Gerald Green
> ...


Gerald Green has been playing real well offensively lately. We couldn't trade Green for Webster straight up right now. Bynum has shown some real flashes. He looks like he is going to be real good. Drafted after Webster, we would have to offer LaMarcus Aldridge to get him, that's how high his trade value is right now. Who could we get for Webster? Crap, that's what.

But, bygones. Nash isn't here anymore. There is a new group running the show. Hopefully the guys we have in place now and through the draft can recreate some of that 2006 magic. Onward and forward.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

wastro said:


> Threads like this are invariably started after almost every single loss ...


Not by me. I've been a big Martell supporter, and have watched his lack of performance this year with dismay. It was only after his latest and greatest dismal performance that I felt the need to comment on it. But that's what a discussion board is for--to discuss our feelings about the players and the team.



> Do you expect all the Blazers to play perfect all the time?


Hell no. If Webster played well even half of the time, I'd be happy as a clam. But the guy has sucked consistently this season, and that deserves a comment.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

ProZach said:


> Your over-reacting..mmmmkay?
> 
> If you look at his stats, he hasn't regressed from last year. He's actually slightly better with slightly more minutes. The one glaring difference is that his free-throw percentage is way down, which shows his problem is mental, not physical. Our expectations are higher, which may be why he appears to be doing so poorly. Clearly he shouldn't have been drafted as high as he was, but it's completely moronic to get this down on a guy so young.
> 
> ...


First, not so about the stats:

Rookie year PER: 11.7
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/webstma02.html
Sophmore PER: 10.1
http://www.knickerblogger.net/stats/2007/Blazers.htm

Second, I agree that it is mental. Some people cannot handle stage fright. Or stress. Or expectations. Not everyone can be a star in the limelight. Not everyone can be an entertainer. I can't. Can you?

He may never outgrow this problem. He needs professional help as I already said earlier in the season. The guy is too much of a perfectionist. The more he misses shots in games the more he beats himself up, the more he tenses up, etc.

Third, as others have pointed out, it is the draft position that Webster was taken that is messing with their minds. We could have had Chris Paul or Deron Williams - who were recently annoited the future of the NBA point position in a recent national article. Or we could have had Andrew Bynum and Jarret Jack. That makes it hard to watch Webster struggle so badly.

Fourth, I have made many posts in the past arguing that it is very, very rare for a player to show so little his first 2 seasons, to ever become anything more than an average player. At this point, Webster will have to buck the long odds to become more than average. With his poor showing so far, he is more likely to have a below average career than an above average one.

Fifth, as for Travis, his 2nd year PER: 15.4. He was inconsistent. He made lots of mistakes. He was yanked if he wasn't on. All things that apply to Webster. Yet, he showed enough flashes to post not half-bad stats when he did earn playing time.

Webster this season, isn't "earning" playing time. He is given it because he was a #6 pick, because he supposedly looks good in practice, because the team really could use an outside shooter to stretch the defense and they hope he will get hot, and because they need to see what he can do. On a lot of other teams, that didn't draft him, have other shooters - he wouldn't get any playing time at all. He is just bad.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

ProZach said:


> The good news is that the guys we drafted out of high-school will start to come into their own the same time our current rookies do.


Huh? Our current rookies are ALREADY coming into their own. They are light years ahead of Webster and Outlaw, and there's no indication that the latter will ever catch up. Roy and Aldridge are going to be stars in this league. Webster and Outlaw are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

If Webster and Outlaw don't do anything to help out their game the 07 rookie class will get playing time and those two will look bad. Older and possibly better talent coming in with the '07 drafts. Hopefully our management will pick up players where we are weak in and right now Webster is perfectly sitting in that hole.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

craigehlo said:


> And after 4 years what do we have with TO? An inconsistent,athletic player that still makes stupid decision on the court. 4 years of grooming and he's a deep rotation player. Let's not make the same mistake with Martell.



What about the mistake we did with Jermaine O'neal? We threw him out for the same reasons I'm hearing we should give up on Martell. All I'm saying is it's way to soon to say either way...


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Huh? Our current rookies are ALREADY coming into their own. They are light years ahead of Webster and Outlaw, and there's no indication that the latter will ever catch up. Roy and Aldridge are going to be stars in this league. Webster and Outlaw are hanging on by the skin of their teeth.



So you're saying LA and Roy have already PEAKED??? Cause that's what I was getting at. Obviously our rookies are ahead of Martell and Outlaw, and obviously their peaks will probably be better than the latter, but Outlaw is a solid bench player and Webster is two years younger than any of them.. 

What's done is done. We drafted Martell. Let's at least MAKE SURE he's a bust before giving him up for another Dale Davis.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> LOL at
> 
> Telfair
> Webster
> ...


Well, passing on Paul was a massive, massive mistake. No getting around that.

But as much as us Telfair-bashers have been looking correct lately (anyone wanna argue Telfair v. Jefferson now?) about Sebastian as a player and a reach in the draft, the Roy acquisition (where Bassy was the key to the deal) removes the sting QUITE a bit from that, and you won't hear me complaining about that pick any more...

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Well, he's polite and he probably has good table manners.


Maybe Patterson needed a golf buddy?

On the main topic: it's WAY too soon to write him off. I don't think that anyone should have expected that much from him the first couple of years. He was picked as high as he was for non-basketball reasons, but just because it was a reach doesn't mean we should give up on him or start blaming him.

Hopefully he'll work on his shot and settle into the small forward spot (where he seems to be a much better fit, as some of us have been saying all along) to play the Glen Rice/Tracy Murray/Dennis Scott role that will be his niche on this team long term.

Ed O.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

Against Detroit 3/14/07
Again, Webster played 18 min, FG 2-5, 3 Reb, 3 Def Rebounds = 4pts	
LaMarcus played 35 min, FG 7-15, 10 Reb, 1 asst, 3 blocks = 14pts 
Roy played 40min, FG 4-8, 2-3 3pt, 4 D-reb, 2 asst, = 15 pts
Webster even looked horrible in warmups.


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

And everyone jumped down my throat earlier this year when I said we should send him to the NBDL....


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

You guys are being to harsh on Webster. We knew we'd have to be patient with him when we got him. If we aren't going to wait at last four years to see where he's at we never should have drafted him. Actually I like some of the things he is doing now compare to Outlaw. I hate Outlaw taking all of those outside shots and it's bitter/sweet when he hits them because it just means it's going to encourage him to take more. Webster at least has been attacking the basket which Outlaw should be doing.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Well, passing on Paul was a massive, massive mistake. No getting around that.
> 
> But as much as us Telfair-bashers have been looking correct lately (anyone wanna argue Telfair v. Jefferson now?) about Sebastian as a player and a reach in the draft, *the Roy acquisition (where Bassy was the key to the deal) removes the sting QUITE a bit from that*, and you won't hear me complaining about that pick any more...
> 
> Ed O.


You got that right! I be happy we got Telfair because that led to Roy.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

ProZach said:


> What's done is done. We drafted Martell. Let's at least MAKE SURE he's a bust before giving him up for another Dale Davis.


Well said.

I'm likin' Ed's posts on this topic as well.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Well, passing on Paul was a massive, massive mistake. No getting around that.
> 
> But as much as us Telfair-bashers have been looking correct lately (anyone wanna argue Telfair v. Jefferson now?) about Sebastian as a player and a reach in the draft, the Roy acquisition (where Bassy was the key to the deal) removes the sting QUITE a bit from that, and you won't hear me complaining about that pick any more...
> 
> Ed O.


I don't quite follow. Are you saying if we had drafted Jefferson, we wouldn't have had the option to trade Jefferson for the #7 because Telfair had more trade value?

If you are not, which I can't fathom you would be, the team still would have been better off drafting Jefferson (ahem, my pick, ahem).

I certainly don't start threads complaining about the pick, but that won't prevent me from going back down bad memory lane regarding all the missed opportunities during the Nash era: Outlaw when I thought we were about to draft Barbosa as I was excited he had dropped. Telfair instead of my pick Al Jefferson. Chris Paul instead of Webster/Jack.

Last summer my picks were Aldridge and Gay. I would have been satisfied with whoever dropped to us. I did prefer to draft a big. I was estatic with the draft. Finally the team and I were aligned. They exceeded all expectations by obtaining my #1 choice, even though they were out of position with only the #4. And I am glad they picked Roy over Gay - even during the draft I could see by Gay's reaction at dropping that I did not want a player with that attitude on the Blazers. Information I did not have prior to the draft, that the Blazers wisely found out and crossed him off the list. Sergio was just beautifully sweet icing on the cake.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I don't quite follow. Are you saying if we had drafted Jefferson, we wouldn't have had the option to trade Jefferson for the #7 because Telfair had more trade value?
> 
> If you are not, which I can't fathom you would be, the team still would have been better off drafting Jefferson (ahem, my pick, ahem).


I think what he's saying is that because we were able to exchange Telfair for Roy, we came out smelling pretty sweet. Obviously Jefferson would have been the better pick, but if we'd had Jefferson we probably wouldn't have traded him for the seventh pick, which netted Roy. And I would much rather have Roy than Jefferson.

Likewise, if we'd drafted Chris Paul, our improved record with him probably would have made it very difficult to get the combo of Aldridge and Roy. That's not a justification for passing on Paul, by any means, but it's a way of saying that last year's draft was dependant--in a way--on the "mistakes" we made in previous drafts.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> I don't quite follow. Are you saying if we had drafted Jefferson, we wouldn't have had the option to trade Jefferson for the #7 because Telfair had more trade value?
> 
> If you are not, which I can't fathom you would be, the team still would have been better off drafting Jefferson (ahem, my pick, ahem).


I would have preferred Jefferson, too, but that we were able to get Roy for Telfair removes much of the damage of the Telfair pick.

Would Boston have given us the #7 pick for Jefferson? Maybe. Probably. But who knows?

Would Portland have won a few more games with Jefferson and Paul than with Telfair and Webster, bumping us down the lottery and putting Aldridge out of reach? Maybe. Probably. 

It's all so speculative that while I will argue that Jefferson was the better pick at that spot AND that Telfair was a reach given his lack of readiness, I won't argue that (in the long run) it hurt us that much because we got Roy out of the deal and (in spite of the Nash years) where we are NOW is looking pretty good.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

If you go back far enough in these sort of thought experiments, you could argue in some sense we traded Rasheed Wallace for...a young, more offensively aggressive version of Rasheed Wallace. 

By dumping Sheed for utter crap (something I and many others have wrongly complained about over the years) we put ourselves in position to be able to trade up for the number two pick, which we used to get Aldridge. If Sheed were somehow still on our team, no way do we get bad enough to be in the position to get Aldridge. 

So the true genius of John Nash has finally come to fruition and I am eating crow. His plan was to so incredibly mangle our roster that we'd have a great draft pick, and to draft Telfair with the intent of screwing over an even worse GM in Boston. Then when he was inevitably canned, the next guy would have a spectacular draft and we'd be well on our way to re-loaded for a championship run. Brilliant! 

Gives me hope that when Dubya finally leaves office our next president will use the utter wreckage of his presidency to resolve the Palistinian conflict, end terrorism, fund social security and medicare, and make our entire economy run on solar power, all in the first six weeks.

I think I'll call this The "When You Got Nothin', You Got Nothin' To Lose" Leadership Plan. Name courtesy of Bob Dylan.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mook said:


> Gives me hope that when Dubya finally leaves office our next president will use the utter wreckage of his presidency to resolve the Palistinian conflict, end terrorism, fund social security and medicare, and make our entire economy run on solar power, all in the first six weeks.
> 
> I think I'll call this The "When You Got Nothin', You Got Nothin' To Lose" Leadership Plan. Name courtesy of Bob Dylan.


I like your optimism. But I'm hoping the parallels don't run too closely.

I certainly don't want our foreign policy issues resolved through the draft...


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

While you're at it, send Biedrins back to Latvia, Milicic back to Serbia and Rashard Lewis back to high school. Because apparently, if you don't produce in your first two years in the league, you're a bust who should be shipped home because you will never develop.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

Have you even looked at the numbers for Biedrins and Lewis' sophomore years? They were both much better than Webster has been.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

#10 said:


> Have you even looked at the numbers for Biedrins and Lewis' sophomore years? They were both much better than Webster has been.


Biedrins: 3.8 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 0.7 BPG in 14.6 MPG

Lewis: 8.2 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 33.3% on 3-pointers in 19.2 MPG

Webster: 6.6 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 36.2% on 3-pointers in 20.4 MPG


I stand corrected....


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ProZach said:


> What's done is done. We drafted Martell. Let's at least MAKE SURE he's a bust before giving him up for another Dale Davis.


Ok, I'll call Tonya and set up the kneecapping. In the meantime, you talk to Nate and make sure he substitutes Martell in and out at completely random times.

barfo


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

A bit selective, aren't you?
Webster is shooting 38% FG, Lewis shot 48% FG, Biedrins 63%. Also, that season Biedrins averaged 13.4 rebounds/48


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Yes I agree, we should have drafted Michael Jordan, as long as we're talking about past draft mistakes.


By the way, does anyone else notice how eerily similar Webster's first and second year numbers are?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3932

In 18 stat columns, 7 are identical, and 5 more differ by only 0.1 or 0.2, although he is playing 2:36 more per game this season. The major differences are his FG% is 1.4 points lower, his rebs are up by 0.7 and his FT% has dropped from a glistening 85.9% to a weak 68.6% somehow. His defense is still really bad as well. It doesn't tell his whole future, but the fact that he hasn't improved from his 1st to 2nd seasons doesn't bode well.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

#10 said:


> A bit selective, aren't you?
> Webster is shooting 38% FG, Lewis shot 48% FG, Biedrins 63%. Also, that season Biedrins averaged 13.4 rebounds/48


Biedrins' field goal percentage is pretty irrelevant when he's only scoring 3.8 PPG. That's two baskets a game, which could very well just be put-backs or garbage baskets. When you aren't scoring much, you can artificially raise your field goal percentage by never shooting unless you get opportunities that even you or I could convert.

That's doubly true for a big man, who gets many more easy inside opportunities, than a perimeter player.

Rashard Lewis was better than Webster in his second season and Biedrins is arguable, but the point is that both still looked like lost scrubs, just as Webster does, and clearly that didn't mean they were finished as players in the NBA.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I really always wondered who else wanted Webster in that draft.Did anyone else want to draft him very high?At any rate I have big problems with taking that big a risk on an unproven perimeter player.It's just an enormous leap from HS to the NBA.Atop of that Webster has to play against the most athletic positions in the NBA and learn to get his shot off against NBA wings.That sort of gamble takes a lot more guts than I have.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Diable's sig said:


> The Bobcats fired their public relations director in mid-December, on the cusp of the holidays, and did not replace him. The man they fired has an infant son. Nice. In other news, the owner still is a billionaire.


I don't read sigs generally (I have the option set to not display them) but in this case I read this one when I wasn't logged in, so my preferences weren't set.

I don't know anything about Charlotte or their PR or their owner. I might be missing a big part of the story.

With those caveats, it strikes me that given the facts listed in your sig, and only those facts, the PR director may have sucked at his job, or otherwise pissed off his employer. The fact that he has an infant doesn't entitle him to employment, and if his employer is happier with nobody rather than him, well... how good/useful could he have been? Even billionaires don't have an obligation to provide employment to the incompetent.

barfo


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> The fact that he has an infant doesn't entitle him to employment, and if his employer is happier with nobody rather than him, well... how good/useful could he have been? Even billionaires don't have an obligation to provide employment to the incompetent.


And you call yourself a commie...

Actually, I thought the same thing when I read the sig. Christmas time is a bad time to get fired, but is there a good time? Should a company not fire an employee if the managers feel they don't need him? Should billionaires be expected to pay employees they don't want? If the quote didn't specifically mention the Bobcats, I'd swear it was from one of Canzano's muckraking pieces about the Blazers.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> And you call yourself a commie...


Is no problem. We take infant, he works on collective farm, ja? No need for parents. Father can be in people's army, eat borscht three times every day. Is good for everyone.

barfo

(apologies to russians, communists, parents, and everyone else)


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

barfo said:


> Is no problem. We take infant, he works on collective farm, ja? No need for parents. Father can be in people's army, eat borscht three times every day. Is good for everyone.
> 
> barfo
> 
> (apologies to russians, communists, parents, and everyone else)


Finally, I get a apology from you!


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually I just want them to hire a new coach,GM,Majority owner and Minority Owner.That's just illustrates the point of why so many people are disenchanted with them trying to run an NBA team on a shoestring while simultaneously raising ticket prices and screwing up their TV deals so that you can't even watch many of the games.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Storyteller said:


> Biedrins: 3.8 PPG, 4.2 RPG, 0.7 BPG in 14.6 MPG
> 
> Lewis: 8.2 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 33.3% on 3-pointers in 19.2 MPG
> 
> ...


Martell Webster 2nd year PER: 10.1 (see post above) regressed from rookie season.

Rashard Lewis 2nd year PER: 16.5
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/lewisra02.html

Andris Biedrins 2nd year PER: 13.6
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/biedran01.html
But, I don't like to compare Big Men to perimeter players. They are too different.

Rashard may have looked like a "lost scrub" as Minstrel claims, but the fact of the matter was he made more plays than Webster does. Showed more productivity, showed more flashes of what could be.

With Webster we get the look of a lost scrub, minus the flashes, minus the productivity.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Rashard Lewis was better than Webster in his second season and Biedrins is arguable, but the point is that both still looked like lost scrubs, just as Webster does, and clearly that didn't mean they were finished as players in the NBA.


In commenting on Webster, I have not claimed that he is finished as an NBA player.

What I have stated, based on what we have seen from 1.5 seasons can be summarized:

(unless Webster has a breakthrough burst to finish out this season), we have seen enough of Webster that he is likely to be no better than an average player, and even that level is not assured. The chances that he will be an above average player are slim and the chances that he will be an excellent player (the Glen Rice projections that were discussed after the draft) are very unlikely.

Does this mean we should throw him to the curb?

No.

Does this mean the team should (if it already hasn't) become agressive with his development or shop him for value - as they were able to do so well with Telfair?

Yes. If you can trade a (now obvious) mediocre prospect for real value, you do it.

The alternative is to reconstruct the player. Send him "back to high school" if you will. There are so many problems with Webster's game. He needs to go back to square one and start his skills development all over. Starting with dribbling and ball handling. He also has mental issues that need to be addressed. Send him to the school counselor.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

For those who missed them, here were some other recent threads about Webster:

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=333609

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=334699

http://www.basketballforum.com/showthread.php?t=335902

After lots of discussion, I could only come up with 1 recent example of a perimeter player entering the NBA young, doing poorly in production (on a per minute or absolute basis) for at least the first two seasons, and then becoming an above average player - Joe Johnson.

Other above average players that enter the league while young, show something good, at least by their 2nd year.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> LOL at
> 
> Telfair
> Webster
> ...


Not fair to leave out the other piece of the trading down move (JJ).

Telfair
Webster
Jack

compared to

Jefferson
Paul

Time will tell. But its too early to give up on the kid. Have some patience. If its not one thing about this team its another. Some of the posters here act as though rebuilding should be a two day job. Doesn't anyone remember 1970-1976 where we never made the playoffs? Or 1979-1988 where we didn't have a good enough team to escape the first round? It takes time to put the right pieces together. 

Cheer for them even when its not pretty to watch!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm convinced, Masbee. I think shopping Webster this summer for the next Telfair-for-Roy deal should be our biggest priority. Any #6 pick only two years out of high school is still going to be perceived as having a lot of value, regardless of how badly he's actually performed. 

If we could trade him in for a #6 through #12 lottery pick this year, or a likely better pick next year, we should do it. If he's worth less than that, then we might as well stick with him because the odds of getting a significantly better player than Webster drastically decrease.

After seeing what they pulled off last spring, I really want to see what our current management can do with another good draft pick.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Masbee said:


> In commenting on Webster, I have not claimed that he is finished as an NBA player.
> 
> What I have stated, based on what we have seen from 1.5 seasons can be summarized:
> 
> (unless Webster has a breakthrough burst to finish out this season), we have seen enough of Webster that he is likely to be no better than an average player, and even that level is not assured. The chances that he will be an above average player are slim and the chances that he will be an excellent player (the Glen Rice projections that were discussed after the draft) are very unlikely.


If you saw his 18 point 2nd quarter against Charlotte on 3/1, you might have a different view of his potential.

Webster has all the tools to be a GREAT player, not just an above average player. Think Glen Rice with more athleticism and better defense. The kid can play.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

I'm not ready to start trade talks with Webster unless another team comes knocking and offers a "deal we can't refuse." 

I'm willing to give him 1 more season after this. 3 seasons is plenty of time to see if he will actually develop into something.

From what I've seen lately, I'm not convinced that he can be an average starter. I'm not sure he has the consistency, head, focus for the game. Defensively, there are more sore spots than bright. Martell even has trouble with small forwards let alone a shooting gaurd. His shot is just plain bad lately. He has gotten many wiiiiiiiiiide open 3s and clanking that rim like it was a bell. This whole, "his mechanics are great and his shot is so sweet" thing is getting old. Yeah, his shot looks good. What would be better if they actually went in. Shawn Marion's shot is pure fugly but it goes in and that's all that counts. If and when Martell starts burying shots again, then, we can all rave about the beauty of his shot. Untill then, there's nothing pretty about a missed bucket.

One more year Martell. I certainly hope you come through because he is a great kid.

Peace


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> If you saw his 18 point 2nd quarter against Charlotte on 3/1, you might have a different view of his potential.
> 
> Webster has all the tools to be a GREAT player, not just an above average player. Think Glen Rice with more athleticism and better defense. The kid can play.


And Tony Delk scored 50 points in one game.

Did that one game make him an above average player?

Absolutely not.

He had a career. He was in the league for years. And you could pick up guys just as good every summer with part of the MLE or even vet minimum.

What makes you think Webster has ALL the tools to be a great player - better than Glen Rice?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ColoradoBlazerFan said:


> I'm willing to give him 1 more season after this. 3 seasons is plenty of time to see if he will actually develop into something.


Problem is that after three years of failure, it'll be plain to everyone outside the organization that he's probably a bust too.

Right now I think it's still plausible to trade him for a #6 through #12 pick. "He's a high schooler second year shooting guard stuck on the bench behind Roy, just as he was hitting his stride," you could say. 

A year from now he's "in his third year and yet to break the regular rotation on a lottery team." We'd probably do well to trade him for a #20 pick at that point. 

I'd rather cut my losses on him and see what Pritchard can do with another lottery pick. Pritchard has had a lot higher history of success lately than Martell.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I think Martell's biggest problem is his confidence. And I don't think Nate is the best coach in the world at propping his players up and instilling confidence. He seems to ride them pretty hard all the time, and that can have quite the opposite effect.

As for what to do with Webster, I'm torn. I guess I need to see what he does between now and the end of the season.

PBF


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> In commenting on Webster, I have not claimed that he is finished as an NBA player.


My post wasn't directed at you, though.



> What I have stated, based on what we have seen from 1.5 seasons can be summarized:
> 
> (unless Webster has a breakthrough burst to finish out this season), we have seen enough of Webster that he is likely to be no better than an average player, and even that level is not assured. The chances that he will be an above average player are slim and the chances that he will be an excellent player (the Glen Rice projections that were discussed after the draft) are very unlikely.


If Webster fails, he'll be the first high schooler taken in the top-ten to do so. Even Shaun Livingston, who had a worse first two seasons, had a season this year that was considered quite promising until he got hurt. That doesn't mean Webster can't fail, but the odds are highly in favour of high schoolers considered talented enough to go that high.

Jermaine O'Neal (to flog a famously dead horse) was only a bit better as a rookie and regressed a similar amount in his second season.

I think high schoolers are a different type of asset from the college prospects, who pretty much need to build quickly and linearly towards their peaks. Outside of freaks like LeBron James, many high schoolers are disappointing at first, even regress a bit early, and then finally flourish. I think two seasons is inadequate time to judge a high schooler, even in the broad fashion that you have (that being an above average or good NBA player is slim to very unlikely).


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Masbee said:


> And Tony Delk scored 50 points in one game.
> 
> Did that one game make him an above average player?
> 
> ...


Rice was a one dimensional player without much athleticism. Martell has the ability to run the floor, attack the rim and play defense, especially in the post, far better than Glen Rice.

Martell, at age 20, has shown flashes of greatness, which is enough to warrant his place on the roster. He has the physical tools to be a go-to scorer, he just needs the time to develop.

He would have benefitted from playing for Lorenzo Romar at UW.

This summer will be key for his development. At minimum, he is an improvement in the "instant offense" role over Dixon and will prove even more effective as he gains confidence.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> My post wasn't directed at you, though.
> 
> If Webster fails, he'll be the first high schooler taken in the top-ten to do so.


Except I never predicted he would "fail". My focus or concern is not "will Webster stick in the NBA or fail?" I don't actually consider that important. What is important to me: what chance is there this young player will become a valuable and productive talent?

Webster is still young. He still has upside potential. I do not deny this. The team needs to (and will no doubt) re-evaluate Webster as a prospect. They should put him on their draft board. As mook says, if they are offered a pick (a prospect just, the same as Webster) higher than where they have Webster ranked, shouldn't they do it? And, if no, why not?

And anyway, I consider Nikoloz Tsawhatshisname to be the Euro equivalent of a high schooler. He was 19 his first season. He was picked #5. He failed.




> Even Shaun Livingston, who had a worse first two seasons, had a season this year that was considered quite promising until he got hurt. That doesn't mean Webster can't fail, but the odds are highly in favour of high schoolers considered talented enough to go that high.


Livingston as a comparison could be a reason for caution on Webster. And, in fact, I am cautious. I am not saying to trade Webster for Sam Cassell or similar, or cut him. I am saying the team needs to take a real hard look at his situation this summer, and should see what they could get for him. If they don't trade him for good value, they need to put him on a "program". (And they need to order him to stay the hell away from Kobe this summer. Boy that pisses me off.)

I didn't list Livingston in the previous threads covering this issue as he was injured his first 2 seasons (and is injured again), only playing in 91 games. That could have delayed his development, thus arguing for adding an extra year to the waiting period. Livingston is a PG, which along with Center is a very difficult position to fill, thus arguing for the team giving the player more time before making a decision. Webster plays the easiest to fill position. 

Livingston also was talked up BIG by other players as being something special, thus arguing for more waiting time, though that can always be hype. (Where is the Webster hype? *crickets*) He also improve in his 3rd season, but still hasn't proven he is any better than average, 13.9 PER, 15 is average. Kinda hard to argue we should wait on Webster cause we might miss out on a Livingston, when "a livingston" isn't actually anything yet.



> Jermaine O'Neal (to flog a famously dead horse) was only a bit better as a rookie and regressed a similar amount in his second season.


I addressed this the other threads in detail I won't rehash here. Bottom line, O'Neal's experience should not cause delay in making a decision on Webster and his future.




> I think high schoolers are a different type of asset from the college prospects, who pretty much need to build quickly and linearly towards their peaks. Outside of freaks like LeBron James, many high schoolers are disappointing at first, even regress a bit early, and then finally flourish. I think two seasons is inadequate time to judge a high schooler, even in the broad fashion that you have (that being an above average or good NBA player is slim to very unlikely).


I had similar thoughts until I actually started looking at it. I knew LeBron was a rarity. I didn't know that Joe Johnson was a rarity as well.

The more I looked and considered the experience of other very young perimeter NBA players and their developments, the more it became clear that those who have become an above average player show something by year two. Sometimes in year one. They may not have big per game averages, they may still be a work in progress defensively, but their per minute adjusted stats will show they can produce at the NBA level.

Hey, maybe Webster will develop like Joe Johnson. We can hope. I wouldn't bet on it, and I hope the Blazer Brass aren't just going to sit around with their fingers crossed. If they had that attitude, we would still have Telfair.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Rice was a one dimensional player without much athleticism. Martell has the ability to run the floor, attack the rim and play defense, especially in the post, far better than Glen Rice.
> 
> Martell, at age 20, has shown flashes of greatness, which is enough to warrant his place on the roster. He has the physical tools to be a go-to scorer, he just needs the time to develop.
> 
> ...


Did you ever see Rice play for the Heat?


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I like Webster, but I would trade him in a second for a top 6 pick. Heck, I would trade him and our #8 pick for a #4 pick.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Masbee said:


> And, in fact, I am cautious. I am not saying to trade Webster for Sam Cassell or similar, or cut him. I am saying the team needs to take a real hard look at his situation this summer, and should see what they could get for him. If they don't trade him for good value, they need to put him on a "program". (And they need to order him to stay the hell away from Kobe this summer. Boy that pisses me off.)


I don't disagree with this at all. I think they should consistently be re-evaluating everyone on the roster, and Webster's stagnation and lack of production should be a major factor. Webster shouldn't be untradeable, or overvalued, because he was a highly-drafted high schooler. I still think, however, that Webster is at a stage where scouting is more important than statistics. Not that statistical production shouldn't be considered, but the Blazers' talent evaluators should have a greater role in determining whether he still has the spark of excellence that led the Blazers to draft him. They have a couple of seasons worth of data, at the highest level of competition, to add to their evaluations.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mook said:


> Problem is that after three years of failure...


Another way to look at it is he is a high school star who is now only 20 years old and next year will be a "rookie" who has the advantage of having been with the team learning the league for 3 years.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Another way to look at it is he is a high school star who is now only 20 years old and next year will be a "rookie" who has the advantage of having been with the team learning the league for 3 years.


Martell has played two years so far. Mook is projecting that IF next year isn't any different then this, the glass is definitely more then half empty. 

Roy looks to be a pretty decent 2 and this draft is going to be loaded with good prospects at 3.

STOMP


----------

