# write up on Eric Gordon, draftexpress



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

http://www.draftexpress.com/article/NCAA-Weekly-Performers,-2-14-08---Part-Two/

I especially like this part:

"Gordon might not be ready to carry a team right out of the gates as a rookie, as he still lacks some polish and is extremely young and inexperienced--but there are a lot of things to like here, especially his mentality, his versatility as a scorer, and the intangibles he brings to the table, which are reportedly very strong. Considering the fact that he’s more of an undersized shooting guard than he is a combo, Gordon is not someone who can fit seamlessly into any team in the NBA—he’ll have to find the right fit. That’s why it will be harder to project his draft stock until we really know which teams will be drafting in the top-10, and in what spots."

sounds like he'd fit here, next to Roy. Killer instinct, versatility, good on the break, and his big weakness is he's a small SG who can't defend other SG's, well Brandon's a big PG who can't defend other PG's...hmmm.

What would you trade to get him (in addition to our pick) on a draft day sort of deal? Do you like him, does he seem like a good fit?

Would you do it for Jack, Outlaw, and our pick? I don't know if I'd go that far, but I like the balance a move like that provides.

Roy/Blake/Sergio
Gordon/Fernandez
Webster/Jones
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Pryzbilla


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Would you do it for Jack, Outlaw, and our pick? I don't know if I'd go that far, but I like the balance a move like that provides.


I doubt that package would be enough to land us Gordon or any of the top 5 draft picks. I think some teams might consider our pick plus LaMarcus though. I'd offer that deal for Derrick Rose.


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

darkhelmit54 said:


> http://www.draftexpress.com/article/NCAA-Weekly-Performers,-2-14-08---Part-Two/
> 
> I especially like this part:
> 
> ...


I would much rather have Eric Gordon than Ben Gordon. Even though, I wouldn't trade Outlaw to get him. I want to see how Travis performs next to Oden and whether he develops enough small forward skills to get the majority of his minutes at the three. Same thing with Webster. 

The pieces I would part with to move up is some combination of: 

2008 first 
Jack 
Frye 
Freeland 
Kopponen 
Future first

It will be interesting to if the Sampson mess at Indiana will hurt Gordon's stock in any way. It could cause a distraction on the team and cause them to be knocked out early in tourney. Another thing we don't know is how many of the freshman will be in the draft this year. If many of them are in, I could see Gordon slip as bigger, non-tweeners are snapped up ahead of him. Not likely to fall to 13 though unless he refuses to work out against opponents ala Gerald Green.

Even if we were to get him it will probably take a few years for him to make an impact on this team. You really think Nate would give him any of Blake's minutes? And if Rudy is the real deal, then Roy will also take up more minutes at the point. There's also the possibility that KP lands an impact guard in trade or free agency when he's ready to use his cap space and Raef's contract next year. So at best, he'd be a player to step in there when this team is ready to compete for championships in a few years.


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

craigehlo said:


> I doubt that package would be enough to land us Gordon or any of the top 5 draft picks. I think some teams might consider our pick plus LaMarcus though. I'd offer that deal for Derrick Rose.


LMA isn't going anywhere. If Chris Paul were offered then yes, but Rose is mostly hype right now and is difficult to predict how good an NBA player he's going to be. I expect Aldridge to be a perfect compliment to Oden, so he's worth much more to this team than he's current stats and performance would indicate.

Gordon isn't a lock in the top 5, yet. If we are willing to take a bad contract back, we might be able to trade up into the 4-8 range depending on what teams draft there.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

tucsonhanny said:


> Even if we were to get him it will probably take a few years for him to make an impact on this team. You really think Nate would give him any of Blake's minutes? And if Rudy is the real deal, then Roy will also take up more minutes at the point...At best, he'd be a player to step in there when this team is ready to compete for championships in a few years.


I think him and rudy would both be the real deal, but Nate would stubbornly refuse to play either of them more than 15 mpg because he likes Blake so much, Rudy could bulk up a little, Gordon could work on his "defense" (nate-ism) and then next year after Blake expired they'd both get another 10-15 mpg. At least if Pritch played it right.

next year
Roy/Rodriguez (Blake would play a lot here too)
Blake/Gordon/Fernandez (15 mpg each)
Webster/Jones
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Pryzbilla

09/10
Roy/Rodriguez
Gordon/Fernandez
Webster/Jones
Aldridge/Frye
Oden/Pryzbilla

it would be interesting to see Sergio get to work with a more talented unit that has some size and could set picks and shoot rather than iso players. He was at his best with Lamarcus last year. He just needs bigs in to feed or he struggles, Raef and Frye do not count. Remember he could even get going a little with Magloire last year.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

tucsonhanny said:


> LMA isn't going anywhere. If Chris Paul were offered then yes, but Rose is mostly hype right now and is difficult to predict how good an NBA player he's going to be. I expect Aldridge to be a perfect compliment to Oden, so he's worth much more to this team than he's current stats and performance would indicate.


I think it would be easier to replace LMA (or most PFs for that matter) than to get a top flight PG like Rose. The Pau Gasol trade shows that getting an impact 4 can be done with expiring contracts.

I think Rose will be in the conversation with Paul and DWilliams in a couple years. His PG play so far as a rookie has been amazing.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

He doesn't sound like he has ANYTHING we would want, or don't already have.

Another runt-guard with very pigeon-holed skills who needs "the right fit" to be of any value?

If that's all that the draft has to offer, we should trade our picks for a future pick.

We are set for guards for years to come, and an undersized SG is the weakest link in the game, IMO.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

Eric gordon, imo, is just a younger version of Ben Gordon. He is a really good player, and a team is gonna be lucky to get him, he will average around 20ppg, imo, and be a better player than Durant, even though Durant has like 5 or 6 inches on him.

Anyway, if we do get Harris, i don't expect us to draft anyone, but use our pick for leverage in gettin' Harris. If we don't, imo, i'd rather draft someone like Bayless, who can play point, and who's potential is as high as Gordon's, imo, but has good size, and is one of the smartest players i've ever seen. Rose seems like he will be the #2 pick, so it will be hard to move up 8 spots to snag him, Gordon, to me, seems like the #3 pick, Bayless seems like around the #6 pick. I'm guessin' we will have around the #10 pick, and people like Sergio, Jack, 2nd round picks to trade and move upa bit, to people who don't need a Pg, and see the player they want back at the 10th pick.

Bayless, Harris, or Connely are PGs that i want, Gordon really does kinda seem unnecesary to our team. A scoring SG doesn't really fit into our team. He isn't the greatest defender either, and is undersized. Don't see it happening, but hey, if we take him, i will be happy as a clam for sure.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Eric Gordon will not be a better NBA player than Kevin Durant. Please stop it. By the way, Portland will be picking either 12 or 13 in the lotto, as they will more than likely have the 2nd best record of non-playoff teams. You're not getting guys like Bayless there.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

are you actually telling me to stop giving my opinion? You realize that Gordon is probably a better defender then durant right? you also realize that Gordon will shoot a higher % right? And you realize that Gordon won't hurt his team while jacking up 20+ shots a game just to get his numbers right?

I think that Gordon will be like Ben Gordon from Chicago except younger, within 2 years. So yea, i think he will be better than Durant. And i don't have to stop saying anything.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Ben Gordon is going to have a better NBA career than Kevin Durant? O R LY? Ignorance is bliss. Eric Gordon is a better NBA defender than Durant? Eric Gordon will come into the NBA next year and be even worse than Durant by a large margin.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

If Gordon jacked up as many shots as Durant he would be a higer PPG scorer. And scoring is all Durant does, so if he is outdone there, he will be outplayed severely.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> You're not getting guys like Bayless there.


which is why i said trade up to snatch Bayless.

Edit - Anyway, i don't want to argue. You have an opinion, i have mine.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Durant isn't jacking up that many shots, he does sometimes, but there is really nobody on that roster you want to take shots. Scoring is not all he does, he is not Carmelo Anthony. He also isn't a bad defender by any means, he will make typical rookie mistakes, he can't defend elite scorers yet, but he has shown the potential to be a very good defender. Not because of his physical attributes, but he has the willingness to play with a high intensity on both ends. I'll take that from a 19 year old rookie. 

Eric Gordon is going to be better than Ben Gordon although I don't think anyone would compare if it wasn't for their surnames. They have some similarities, however who does not if you are not being totally strict with the attributes ? 

I think the Blazers should trade their pick for veteran help unless they fall in love with someone, the team is young enough and they have seen this year who can be a part when they are starting to become contenders.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> Bayless, Harris, or *Connely* are PGs that i want



It's really hard to legitimately consider what you're saying, when you butcher a guy's name that you apparently have an affinity for. I can't imagine you being too serious about Conley if you can't even get close to spelling his name right.

As far as the actual topic...I don't think we'd be able to get Gordon without giving up a decent piece of our future. Our pick won't be that great, and I don't expect other GMs to be as high on Sergio, Jack, Frye, or Webster as some people around here are. Also, I like Sergio, Frye and Webster, and can tolerate Jack (at least for the rest of this year). 

I think people are a bit too impatient in waiting for this team to grow. It was unrealistic to expect 5-12 pace to stick, as well as the 17-1 span to be a realistic indication of the team. We're somewhere in between, and just need to be patient for another year or two. We're not competing for titles this year, so there's no reason to panic. We weren't even supposed to be contending for playoffs this year, and people are freaking out about "only" being 28-24. Yeah, it'd be nice if they had been playing better lately, and I don't expect everyone to just be satisfied with losses, but it's important to keep the big picture in mind. You bring in Gordon, and then what happens to Rudy? Do you really want to just give each of them 15 minutes darkhelmit? That seems idiotic to me.

/rant


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

^SO you are arguing with a PG i like because i can't spell his name right?



> he is not Carmelo Anthony


true, Anthony has a much higher FG% and is a much better rebounder and a better scorer.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^SO you are arguing with a PG i like because i can't spell his name right?
> 
> 
> 
> true, Anthony has a much higher FG% and is a much better rebounder and a better scorer.


He is in the league for five years now and still doesn't the understand the concept of team play. His stats don't reflect his impact on the game, he can score 30 very efficiently, but you never get the feeling that he is the best player on the floor. Right now he is better than Durant, but that won't be for long.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

MrJayremmie said:


> ^SO you are arguing with a PG i like because i can't spell his name right?


I'm saying it's hard to take your opinion on someone with any substance if you haven't even cared about the player enough to be able to get close to spelling the name correctly.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

How is Connely not close to Conley?



> He is in the league for five years now and still doesn't the understand the concept of team play. His stats don't reflect his impact on the game, he can score 30 very efficiently, but you never get the feeling that he is the best player on the floor. Right now he is better than Durant, but that won't be for long.


honestly, i agree. I don't think he is a top 15 player, but look at who you are defending.

About Carmello:


> doesn't the understand the concept of team play


Same with Durant dude.



> you never get the feeling that he is the best player on the floor


Same with Durant.



> His stats don't reflect his impact on the game


Same with Durant. Durant will have 20 points, but his lack of defense and rebounding and amount of shots he takes hurt his team more than help.

To me, it seems that Anthony does everything better than Durant. Rebounding, Defense, Assist, Shot, getting to the line, getting to the hoop, win.

Just my observation.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

The difference is that Durant has a different mindset, he is a willing passer, he just isn't a good one yet. He is a team player, that doesn't mean he won't take a lot of shots. Of course he isn't at the point where he is notably good at one thing, but I can guarantee you that he will be. 

If you look at his body you don't think that he could even survive in the NBA, he can because he has great skills for someone of his age. Having the right mindset is far more important than a filled out body when you come into this league.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> The Pau Gasol trade shows that getting an impact 4 can be done with expiring contracts.


what did the Baron Davis trade show?

to the thread question... because I think Rudy is going to be a player I don't see the need for a 2nd guard upgrade to the point I want to give up a proven player like Travis. I'd feel good going into next season with a three guard rotation of Rudy Roy and Blake. If someone wants to take back Portland's unproven (now projected top o' the lotto) 2008 1st and another player a little further down their hierarchy of talent, then maybe. I will add that I think the players that project at the top of the lotto look to be a pretty talented group as well... heck Gordon could easily slip. 

STOMP


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> If you look at his body you don't think that he could even survive in the NBA, he can because he has great skills for someone of his age.


i agre with you 100% on this. There were questions how he would fare in the NBA because how small he was, and his strength, but even though i'm nt very impressed, he proved to me, without a doubt, he can make it in this league easy. I don't think he is a great player, but i know he will be good. I think everyone knows that.

Main things he needs, imo, is to bulk up a bit, and a good coach, and he will succeed with ease. And most likely be a very very good player. I'm voting for him, but i don't think he will be as good as Carmello, maybe abetter team player, you are right.



> I will add that I think the players that project at the top of the lotto look to be a pretty talented group as well... heck Gordon could easily slip.


yea, for sure. Rose, Beasly, Gordon, Bayless, just some awesome players comin' into the NBA. I think Beasly is going to be amazing.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

LameR said:


> You bring in Gordon, and then what happens to Rudy? Do you really want to just give each of them 15 minutes darkhelmit? That seems idiotic to me.
> /rant


no I think that's all Nate would give him IMO. Nate will say Rudy is too skinny and not good enough on defense because he doesn't like his scary style of play and it will be an adjustment period, no matter how good Rudy is. If it was up to me and we could get a hold of Gordon for say Jack, Outlaw, and our pick or something I'd cut into Blake's minutes and then whoever was hot between Sergio, Gordon, or Rudy would get more minutes on a game by game basis. Then as those guys matured Blake's minutes would decrease.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> no I think that's all Nate would give him IMO. Nate will say Rudy is too skinny and not good enough on defense because he doesn't like his scary style of play and it will be an adjustment period, no matter how good Rudy is. If it was up to me and we could get a hold of Gordon for say Jack, Outlaw, and our pick or something I'd cut into Blake's minutes and then whoever was hot between Sergio, Gordon, or Rudy would get more minutes on a game by game basis. Then as those guys matured Blake's minutes would decrease.


If they need to scale his minutes back to make room for a better player be it a new guy or someone the club owns the rights to, Blake's contract has a team out option after next season. His contract only runs a year after that and it's pretty cheap for a solid rotation level guy. 

But since this is your umpteenth proposal for shipping Travis out of town, I have a hard time believing that this is anything other then you (yet again) expressing your desire for sending TO out of town so as to give your guy Martell a bigger role at SF... and thats a conversation we've already had here many times. As usual, Martell's name is absent from your trade proposal... I think most here would rate him somewhere between Jack and Outlaw in trade value and an obvious piece that could be used.

STOMP


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

Interesting that according to Draft Express, 6 of the top 13 picks are considered PG's ( or combo guards) The #12th pick is projected to be Kevin Love. At #13 our pick really isn't going to be all that bad.

I watched the Arizona game yesterday and both Bayless and Budinger (Projected at #3 and #9) are pretty good. Yet they lost.... again.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

No way would I trade LMA for any player in this draft. The last thing we need to do is continue to get younger by trading established players for rookies. As good as guys like Rose and Gordon are, there is never any guarantee that a player will pan out in the NBA. Why trade a PF that is clearly going to be VERY good for players that might be? I know we need a pg and all but I think trading for, or signing, an established vet would be a more prudent move.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i really like gordon. he's going to be a good nba scorer and playing next to roy would be a perfect fit for him(and great for portland). but if rudy is coming over next year and he's the real deal(like the blazers organization obviously thinks he is), i don't see how gordon fits in there. neither guy is a pg meaning they wouldn't be able to run a backcourt together. in that case, bayless would be a better fit on portland to form a great backcourt rotation of roy/bayless/rudy.

adding either gordon or bayless to the trio of roy/aldridge/oden would be great though and just another step towards ensuring a blazer dynasty in the very near future.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

> in that case, bayless would be a better fit on portland to form a great backcourt rotation





> I watched the Arizona game yesterday and both Bayless and Budinger (Projected at #3 and #9) are pretty good. Yet they lost.... again.


woohoo! awesome. You guys are both with me then, I think they should move up some spots and grab Bayless if we don't get Harris. Bayless seems like the next logical choice, Rose seems like he will be the 2nd pick, and i'm pretty sure Bayless will be around 5 or 6 with Gordon, Beasly, and Rose for sure ahead of him. We will see, i think Bayless would be a great fit, he is such an amazing player.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I would be fine with Rose, Gordon, Bayless or Mayo. All are going to be very good NBA players, and there is a good chance one will be avaliable when we pick. 

Its really a great draft to need a combo guard.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

I'm a big fan of Gordon. The guy can flat out shoot it, only a freshman and you know teams are game planning to stop him and he's still putting it up.
He's shown some ability to pass the ball so I don't know if he's so much like Ben Gordon. Ben just scores, and that's it.

I liken him to possibly a Deron Williams or Baron Davis type. I'd love to see him in the backcourt with Roy.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

alext42083 said:


> I liken him to possibly a Deron Williams or Baron Davis type. I'd love to see him in the backcourt with Roy.


that would require him to play pg and create for others. yeah eric gordon can pass the ball some, but he's no pg.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

MARIS61 said:


> He doesn't sound like he has ANYTHING we would want, or don't already have.
> 
> Another runt-guard with very pigeon-holed skills who needs "the right fit" to be of any value?
> 
> ...


Perfectly said. A short guard will NOT GET YOU TO THE FINALS!!! Everyone with half a BBiQ point knows that.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Resume said:


> Perfectly said. A short guard will NOT GET YOU TO THE FINALS!!! Everyone with half a BBiQ point knows that.


not true. not at all.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

rocketeer said:


> not true. not at all.


Prove me wrong then. Who was the last NBA champ with a short 2 guard?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> Perfectly said. A short guard will NOT GET YOU TO THE FINALS!!! Everyone with half a BBiQ point knows that.


Just ask Wade, he'll tell you. 

We would actually have a fairly large back court with Gordon and Roy. Gordon is listed in college at 6'4", while Roy is 6'6" 

With Gordon's speed and quickness he could guard most PG's, and then on offense Roy could direct the team.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> that would require him to play pg and create for others. yeah eric gordon can pass the ball some, but he's no pg.


No, it means that he would share the ball handling on offense and Roy would be the main PG on offense. On defense, yes, Gorden would be the PG. He is a pretty good defender, not great, but has a lot of length and speed that makes me think he could eventually become a very good PG defender even if he never gets good at defending SG's. But it would mostly be Roy that would create for others.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

wade is short for a 2 guard. and the team they played in the finals(the mavs) started devin harris and jason terry in the backcourt.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

GOD said:


> No, it means that he would share the ball handling on offense and Roy would be the main PG on offense. On defense, yes, Gorden would be the PG. He is a pretty good defender, not great, but has a lot of length and speed that makes me think he could eventually become a very good PG defender even if he never gets good at defending SG's. But it would mostly be Roy that would create for others.


sorry i should have deleted the first part of the post i quoted. i was specifically referring to the part where he said "I liken him to possibly a Deron Williams or Baron Davis type."


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> Prove me wrong then. Who was the last NBA champ with a short 2 guard?



Like I said above

Wade
Jason Terry 
AI is a shooting guard that made it to the finals (your original statement)
Dumars
Byron Scott


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Just ask Wade, he'll tell you.
> 
> We would actually have a fairly large back court with Gordon and Roy. Gordon is listed in college at 6'4", while Roy is 6'6"
> 
> With Gordon's speed and quickness he could guard most PG's, and then on offense Roy could direct the team.


I knew you would say Wade lol



rocketeer said:


> wade is short for a 2 guard. and the team they played in the finals(the mavs) started devin harris and jason terry in the backcourt.


Wade had SHAQ though. Look what happened to him now that Shaq is no longer a force in the league for the last 2 years. NoTHiNG!!! 9 wins by Allstar break!?!?!?!? Come on.

Also, Eric Gordon is no where near Wade type talent.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

mediocre man said:


> Like I said above
> 
> Wade
> Jason Terry
> ...


Well thank you for proving me wrong and not just saying I am wrong with no facts.

And last I checked AI and Terry have not won any championships.

Scott had Magic, James Worthy and Kareem while he won his championship, and that was like 20 years ago lol
Dumars had the badboys and was a combo guard.

In any event... i think it is safe to say that short guards in history dont win _too_ much. Not much at all.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Resume said:


> Wade had SHAQ though. Look what happened to him now that Shaq is no longer a force in the league for the last 2 years. NoTHiNG!!! 9 wins by Allstar break!?!?!?!? Come on.
> 
> Also, Eric Gordon is no where near Wade type talent.


so? you made an incredibly stupid statement that you tried to pass off as fact. you mean short guards can only win on good teams? really? because big guards can only win on good teams too.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Resume said:


> And last I checked AI and Terry have not won any championships.


"Perfectly said. A short guard will NOT GET YOU TO THE FINALS!!! Everyone with half a BBiQ point knows that."

they didn't win, but they got to the finals.

and for all the excuses about teammates you're bringing out, what's the point? a small guard on portland would be playing wth roy, oden, and aldridge.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Take it easy Red-Rocketeer lol

Pick Gordon then. See what happens.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Gordon would be a SG on offense and a PG on defense. Defensivley, many scouts have given him great reviews. Offensivley, his ability to move without the ball and spread the court would compliment Roy and Oden perfectley. 

He may not be a true point guard, but this team DOES NOT need a true PG. We need someone who can still be effective when Roy has the ball on offense, which generally is the situation. Blake does a decent job, but he is nowhere near the shooter/scorer Gordon is. 

We also need someone who can create their own shot at times and actually drive to the hoop. Blake and Sergio are absoloutley horrendous when it comes to getting to the rim. Jack is decent, but his other shortfalls far outweigh his mediocre ability to go to the hole. 

There is absolutley no reason we should come out of this draft without one of Rose, Bayless, Gordon or Mayo. We have the assests to do so and need to make the move. All would be amazing fits on this team.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

I would love to see Rose on this team!!!!!!!!!

What happened to red-rocketeer?


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Well dont get your hopes up on Rose, it will be extremley unlikley he falls out of the top 2.

Guys like Bayless, Gordon, Mayo and even Brian Westbrook are far more likley to be avaliable. 

Bayless reminds me of Barbosa with more PG skills.
Gordon reminds me of a rich mans Ben Gordon.
Mayo reminds me of a poor mans Gilbert Arenas.
Westbrook reminds me of Monta Ellis.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> There is absolutley no reason we should come out of this draft without one of Rose, Bayless, Gordon or Mayo. We have the assests to do so and need to make the move. All would be amazing fits on this team.


If the Blazers aren't picking in the top 10, that's exactly what's going to happen. Unless you think someone is going to give a top 10 pick for Martell Webster, lol.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Well dont get your hopes up on Rose, it will be extremley unlikley he falls out of the top 2.
> 
> Guys like Bayless, Gordon, Mayo and even *Brian Westbrook* are far more likley to be avaliable.
> 
> ...


Brian Westbrook plays running back for the Philadelphia Eagles. Russell Westbrook is a sophomore shooting guard for UCLA.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

HKF said:


> Brian Westbrook plays running back for the Philadelphia Eagles. Russell Westbrook is a sophomore shooting guard for UCLA.


LMFAO


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Well dont get your hopes up on Rose, it will be extremley unlikley he falls out of the top 2.
> 
> Guys like Bayless, Gordon, Mayo and even Brian Westbrook are far more likley to be avaliable.
> 
> ...


Do you not have your own opinion?! All those comparisons are the same as draft.net and draftexpress comparisons lol


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Resume said:


> I would love to see Rose on this team!!!!!!!!!
> 
> What happened to red-rocketeer?


huh?

oh and i'd take bayless or gordon for the blazers(and for the majority of teams) before i took rose.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HKF said:


> If the Blazers aren't picking in the top 10, that's exactly what's going to happen. Unless you think someone is going to give a top 10 pick for Martell Webster, lol.


you don't think an early non lottery pick, jack, and either webster or outlaw would be enough to move up to draft one of those guys?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Resume said:


> Perfectly said. A short guard will NOT GET YOU TO THE FINALS!!! Everyone with half a BBiQ point knows that.


Yeah, Dwyane Wade, John Stockton, Tony Parker and Isiah Thomas never got to the Finals. Everyone knows that.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> you don't think an early non lottery pick, jack, and either webster or outlaw would be enough to move up to draft one of those guys?


Sure would be a lot to give up for 19 year old combo guards.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HKF said:


> Sure would be a lot to give up for 19 year old combo guards.


you wouldn't give that up to get bayless?

it definitely is a lot to give up, but that's what it would take and the blazers do have it available to give. at some point they are going to have to turn a few of these players into one better player in a trade. i mean blake, jack, sergio, rudy, webster, outlaw, james jones. there are only so many minutes to go around(not including roy because there's no chance he goes anywhere).

do you not think bayless, roy, outlaw or webster, aldridge, oden would be an amazing team for the next 10 years?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

No, because I would prefer him not on Portland. Roy's game will never allow the guy next to him to be great as well, because he's too versatile. A Derek Fisher/BJ Armstrong type is better suited.

A guy who could evolve into a good player next to Roy believe it or not is Aaron Brooks.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

IMO Bayless is the player we shuold get. He can play PG, create for himself and others, and is just a solid player.

I'm sad we didn't snatch Harris, but if we get Bayless i think we will be ok. If not, i think Pritchard is gonna offer Paul somethin' after next season.

But yea, Bayless is really the only player that makes sense from this draft for us in the first round.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> Yeah, Dwyane Wade, John Stockton, Tony Parker and Isiah Thomas never got to the Finals. Everyone knows that.


or Avery Johnson, Derrick Fisher, and a slew of 6 foot nothing guys who started beside MJ...

STOMP


----------



## tucsonhanny (Feb 3, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> IMO Bayless is the player we shuold get. He can play PG, create for himself and others, and is just a solid player.
> 
> I'm sad we didn't snatch Harris, but if we get Bayless i think we will be ok. If not, i think Pritchard is gonna offer Paul somethin' after next season.
> :greatjob::greatjob:
> But yea, Bayless is really the only player that makes sense from this draft for us in the first round.


The only way KP is getting Chris Paul is if Paul Allen calls up his buddy Bill Gates and convinces him to buy the Hornets and then trade Paul to him (for Jack and Miles) as a thank you for helping co-found Microsoft.
:greatjob:

As an added bonus, the Hornets won't draw enough fans terminating the lease and then Bill can move the team to Seattle into the soon to be created Windows Vista Areo-ena. Once the Oklahoma City Sonics prove to not be economically viable after a few years they will sold with the new owners moving them to New Orleans.


----------

