# Game thread!



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

4-3 portland

zag 2 reb


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

29-22 Portland after 1!


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

And our scoring leader is... Dan Dickau? Could it be a worse person? I want Sergio!

And if Roy is guarding Ray Allen, he's obviously having a hard time of it...


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Am I wrong here? His name (Magloire) is pronounced Muh-glore, right?

Wheels is calling him Muh-glure. 

Should I get used to that as the correct way, or should I continue to let it bug me?


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

meru said:


> And our scoring leader is... Dan Dickau? Could it be a worse person?


Points are points...I don't see what it matters.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Sergio sure isn't shy, is he? Two three-pointers in quick succession and very limited time.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Wow. Quite the half! Lots of hustle evident, nice shooting, even two assists (and no turnovers) from Zach.

The Blazers dominate the boards for a change, 23 to 16, with Pryz and Mags splitting the time equally.

A lot here to make one think this season may not be *all* pain.

iWatas


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

First half thoughts:

- 6-9 from 3pt is a good thing.
- Zach Randolph has a nice line: 10 pts, 5 rebounds, 2 assists and 0 turnovers.
- Sergio Rodriguez has NBA range
- Brandon Roy is nervous, but still has a few dimes. Not especially involved in the offense.

It's hard to tell much when everyone is getting so many touches.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Frodo . . . shoot the ball Frodo. Samwise Garcia is with you.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Iwatas said:


> A lot here to make one think this season may not be *all* pain.


This season won't be painful irrespective of how many wins we get... the lottery is going to be great, and being in a position to draft Oden won't be the worst thing in the world.

I think it's a bit early to tell if the on-the-court product will be better. 

Ed O.


----------



## G-Force (Jan 4, 2005)

In limited minutes, Danny and Sergio have contributed nicely so far with the long ball. Sergio did get rung up for two fouls in three minutes, though.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Sergio is going to be a legit NBA starter someday. Mark my words.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

God I wish I could watch this...


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Jack seems to be having a hell of a game... Alley oop to Webster! Who says he's not athletic enough?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

4 Blazers dive to the floor for a loose ball... beautiful!


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

Kinda impressed with how much Dickau is contributing at the moment. From all we read about his injury and lack of being able to practice, sure sounded like he wouldn't be much more than a last resort PG backup, but he seems to be quite useful for this team now


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

No kidding, I'm impressed with what I'm hearing about Dickau as well.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

3rd quarter recap:

rebounds: blazers 30, supes 28
assists: blazers 15, supes 9
fg%: blazers 47.3%, supes 42.6
turnovers: blazers 13, supes 9


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Dixon needs to stop shooting... seems like we're losing the lead.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Dixon needs to stop shooting... seems like we're losing the lead.


Well, he has been using a shooting machine.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Well, he has been using a shooting machine.


I still want one of those really bad.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I'm only watching the game on ESPN gamecast but it seems that we are still looking how to finish a game. Things looked good in the first half but not so good lately.

I'll be very interested to hear the opinion of those who attended the game as stat-wise and play-by-play wise it doesn't seem that Martell & Roy are contributing as much as we had hoped - of course, this is only game one of the pre-season so rustiness is to be expected.

Gramps...


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

..we lsot again. yes its preseason but after winning only 21 times last year, i need wins!!!!! whens lamarcus comming back?


----------



## blazers2285 (May 2, 2005)

The call differential is bullXXXX. We played a good first half but i felt jack was inserted into the game to late. Oh well jest preseason. To many turnover it also seemed like we lost focus on rebounding.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

The Supes bench wins the game!


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

The odd officiating at the end really seemed to mentally throw our guys off... They just couldn't quite get back into it after that. Hope it's something they can work out in the next few preseason games, otherwise I predict many a hot starts and quick fizzles to their games.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> The odd officiating at the end really seemed to mentally throw our guys off... They just couldn't quite get back into it after that. Hope it's something they can work out in the next few preseason games, otherwise I predict many a hot starts and quick fizzles to their games.


That game was a bunch of fun. I got to sit in the press row, right next to the Blazer bench. 

The officials specifically Bill Kennedy(#55) was a told jerkoff. Guy called the most bull**** call's I've ever seen. Honestly, and I'm not exaggerating. A sonic shot the ball, and Martell touched his elbow with a finger long after the shot and it was a foul.

Guy was an *******.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Was at the game. Couple of quick observations:

Roy looked nervous
Jack looked really good
Zach looked good till the fourth quarter
Better hussle then I've seen in a long while
Sergio not nervous at all. Like Telfair has not figured out that you don't thrown a trick pass to Joel
Outlaw, well he tripped over his own feet 4 times. Just not going to make it in the NBA.
Dixon is a massive waste of a uniform. Needs to be traded or cut asap. Just flat out BAD.
Officiating - HORRID! :cheers:


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

baler said:


> Was at the game. Couple of quick observations:
> 
> Roy looked nervous
> Jack looked really good
> ...


Dixon looked like absolute garbadge at the beginning of last season, but eventually settled down and became a good scoring spark. What other options do we have at backup SG? Dan Dickau at SG? Darius Miles?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

baler said:


> Was at the game. Couple of quick observations:
> 
> Roy looked nervous
> Jack looked really good
> ...


That about covers it.

Dixon's shot just wasn't following, and he tried to force too much.

Roy didn't necessarily try too hard, but he definitely seemed jittery.

The team pretty much imploded in the 4th; nothing went right for them in that quarter, and the Sonics were getting rebounds, making shots, getting second chances, etc ... it was one-and-done for the Blazers in the 4th, for the most part.

Martell seemed over-anxious, which would be why he fouled out in no time, it seemed like. Really strange game for him.

Dickau and Jack were leaders out on the floor, corraling teammates and helping them out between plays. Even Zach told Brandon Roy late in the game to relax (or something along those lines). He was definitely communicating with his teammates.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

wastro said:


> That about covers it.
> 
> Dixon's shot just wasn't following, and he tried to force too much.
> 
> ...


Part of his fouling out so early was the refs as well. But yeah, he was a lillte anxious.


----------



## Buck Williams (May 16, 2004)

Damn those were the worst refs ive ever seen even for preseason


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

My take:

Zach was aggressive, he took the ball inside and looked like the old Zach. He went to his right a few times as well. Unfortunately, still some signs of the bad Zach. He took the outside jumper where he hesitates for a few seconds before shooting with a guy in his face. Then, an absurd moment in the 4th quarter where he tried to take his man off the dribble with a predictably poor result. The crowd booed. Still, on Seattle's next possession, he made a steal, then made a nice dive to save the ball. At least he knew he screwed up...

As others have said, Dixon sucked.

Swift has carrot top style hair and ink. He looks ridiculous.

Sergio made some nice passes in his limited minutes, but like Telfair, some overly ambitious ones as well. He was terrible defensively.

Dickau wasn't great, some nice moments but poor defense.

There was one scrum where just about everyone was diving for the ball. Blazers didn't get it, but it was still great to see the effort, especially in a pre season game.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

#10 said:


> There was one scrum where just about everyone was diving for the ball. Blazers didn't get it, but it was still great to see the effort, especially in a pre season game.


That was one of the best parts of the game ... half the team was down the scrambling for the ball. Great intensity. Even Martell was clapping about the effort coming out of the dogpile.

It was good to see the team playing with that intensity early on, so it was a shame to see that same intensity absent later on -- when they needed it most.

One more thing ... this team is still getting used to each other. I hope to see them gel as the season goes on, hopefully cutting down on turnovers. That, and Nate's (alleged) solid rotation will help, too.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

wastro said:


> That was one of the best parts of the game ... half the team was down the scrambling for the ball. Great intensity. Even Martell was clapping about the effort coming out of the dogpile.


Classic part: Refs called a "kicked" ball on Portland! :curse:


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

baler said:


> Classic part: Refs called a "kicked" ball on Portland! :curse:


So that's what it was? All I know is, the crowd was excited for maybe a jump ball, but ... kick ball? Are you serious? Grrrrrrrr.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

One more thing, did anyone else think that Sergio's shot was a little flat? Might just have been my nosebleed seats.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

#10 said:


> One more thing, did anyone else think that Sergio's shot was a little flat? Might just have been my nosebleed seats.


I dunno, he was 2-2 (both coming from beyond the arc).


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

I was at the game just some stuff i noticed:

Zach didnt make a single outside jumper or maybe 1, most of his shots were some ugly post moves he loves to do that somehow go in. Was even Boo'd at one time by the fans because he helped shoot us out of the game.

Maglore started off the game on the bench, when he came in he scored two quick baskets. He is much more tallented than Joel offensively its easy to see. He looked a bit winded in the 3rd and was getting tussled around by the huge rookie Sren or whatever his name is. Maglore faded after the 2nd quarter imo.

Martel had a good start but also faded on the offensive end from the outside, his shot looks good and he had that great dunk in the 3rd. He still hasnt shown the ability to put the ball on the floor and score. Martel has greatly improved from what we saw last year.

Jarret Jack was on of the best players on the court for the Blazers. I'm pretty sure he burnt his defender atleast twice and had wide open layups, like the ones you practice. Had an overall good game, he had 10,4,4 in the 4th not sure what he finished with.

Sergio played with confidence and although he made many rookie mistakes he showed lots of effort. On the Defensive end he over commits and gets too close to his man and then ends up getting burn. I dont know if he is fast enough to body up with PG at the 3 point line and then stay with them as the drive. Played with confidence and didnt seem shy at all. Has a place on the team

Dan Dickau, Played solid, made the shots he was supost to make. Did what i knew he could do but i still wonder if Nate will play him.

Roy. Played all 3 positions today. showed some signs of aggresiveness but his outside shot just wasn't falling and seemed a bit jittery whenever he drove to the basket. Played good defence but Nate had them in a Zone for much of the first half when the sonics were playing Ray and Lewis. Blocked one of Ray Allens post up shots.

Dixon. A performance to forget.

Pryzbilla- played solid, affected some shots and did what he could on offence. He tried to set some picks but the guards either didnt use them or were unable to find Joel on the roll.

Outlaw- Has made improvements over last year. Has confidence in his shot and gets incredibly high on block attemts and rebounds. At one time outlaw jumped early for a rebound and he still got it on the way down because he was higher up than the player who jumped on time. Has improved from last year and thats what i like to see.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

There isn't much I can add to this thread, but here it goes....

We have three nice PG's that can give us totally different looks. Jack is solid, Dickau can shoot it, and Rodriquez looks like he could be real special. 

I like our team size and strength. The only time we get abused is when our 2nd unit comes in with Dickau and Dixon playing together. As some of you know I can't stand Dixon because his offense is hot and cold, and his defense is sub-zero. If we get Dixon out of the rotation (or off the team) it might be the first time in years where tiems don't take advantage of us by posting up their guards. 

Overall, I think Maglorie is better than Joel, but I think he fits better coming off the bench. A Maglorie/Randolph combo could get ugly as their games don't appear like they would blend all that well.

Lastly, I can't help by chime how bad the refs were. They must have called 50+ fouls in a game that didn't look that physical. While many Blazers took steps in the offseason to improve their game, the same can't be said about the refs.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

I agree with most everything said here.

Although Jack was having a good game then stopped distributing in the fourth quarter.

Outlaw did a tremendous job, IMO. He still is to skinny, but he played PF for a little while against Sene and smoked him. Even got the monster Alley-oop from Dickau. Great Pass!

Webster got some bad calls.

Jamaal was playing well but was unsure of the plays. I think all the forwards suffored from this. Outlaw seemed to be the only true forward that was getting himself open and reallly moving the defense around, suprising.

Sergio did really well. Handled the ball with confidence and was able to move a hell of a lot faster than Jack or Dickau. Nailed some huge 3's. Didn't get enough time.

Hamilton, get that guy on the bench. Huge

Nate, glad to see him take the T for the team and put that ref in his place. That guy was a bigger Jack*** than Steve-O. I could understand what agenda the refs were on and why.

Dixon - Please stop the pain

LaFrenz - dominated the center position - 22 pts - 13 reb - 4 ast - 0 to's - glad to have him on the team! :clap:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> I was at the game just some stuff i noticed:
> 
> Zach didnt make a single outside jumper or maybe 1, most of his shots were some ugly post moves he loves to do that somehow go in. Was even Boo'd at one time by the fans because he helped shoot us out of the game.


The only thing I have to add to all the great info in this thread is that I was listening to the game on the Sonics station, and David Locke sounded SHOCKED that Zach got boo'd so quickly and seemingly without reason.

I don't think that's a good sign. If fans are going to boo when the team's losing a lead, they're going to boo a lot. Maybe not, since leads might be few and far between. 

Ed O.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

with miles we would have won.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> The only thing I have to add to all the great info in this thread is that I was listening to the game on the Sonics station, and David Locke sounded SHOCKED that Zach got boo'd so quickly and seemingly without reason.
> 
> I don't think that's a good sign. If fans are going to boo when the team's losing a lead, they're going to boo a lot. Maybe not, since leads might be few and far between.
> 
> Ed O.


The booing wasn't without reason. Zach was dribbling the ball about 10 times and then shooting ugly outside shots. This was at critical points in the game. They weren't booing because they were losing the lead, it was because of stupid bone-headed shots that we could have gone without.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

btw, Dixon needs to go. He is just going to take up space on this roster and suck up minutes from young guys who will eventually be better than him, if not already better.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

2 players in double figures.



Everyone still excited about Nate's offense?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Well here are my observations from the game:

Jack did fine. Steady. Consistent. Shooting better from the outside. Good defense. Exactly what I suspected. He went a long time in the game before looking for his shot. He should attack a little bit more to keep the defense honest.

Outlaw: I see improvement so far. His defense on Lewis in the first half was stellar, he wasn't going for fakes, he was very patient, and stuck to him like glue. They didn't start having any problems with Lewis until the refs started calling a lot of fouls in the second half. His shooting looks about the same. His rebounding has improved. For a while in the second half he was on Sene and did a pretty good job keeping him out of the paint considering he is 4 inches shorter then Sene. He is also learning to "lurk" and get blocks from the weak side. Good signs. 

Zbo: Did a very good job, except for the one shot that everybody boo'd him on. The reason everybody boo'd him was the fact they came up the court, and with all the time on the shot clock, he basically did a crossover at 19' out and jacked up a brick rather then even pass the ball once. I for one, don't want to see that crap anymore, and I think the fans don't in general. Top it off with the fact that Zbo had been playing great all night long, I thin the fans got spoiled and just didn't want to see him fall back to his "old ways" of last season. He was very agressive, hitting the defensive boards (A big problem last year), and I think he also deserves big kudos for coming back after he got boo'd by making a big effort on defense for a steal and then getting a floor burn to save the ball. I like what I see from Zbo so far. 

Magloire: Played well, but does not fit with Zbo in the lineup well. When they were both on the floor the middle got clogged like last year. Magloire was agressive at both ends of the floor, exactly what I expected. Shoots free throws like Ruben did though, in other words: Misses a lot even though he gets fouled a lot.

Juan "The Black Hole" Dixon": Do I need to do more then name him? The ball is going in, it isn't ever coming back. Please get rid of this guy ASAFP.

Martell Webster: Played well initially, and ok offensively all night, but struggled defending Lewis in the second half. It didn't help that that referee's really gave Lewis a lot of calls in the second half, most of which were really poor. Consistently ran the floor well, and did hit best shooting when he didn't hesitate.

Brandon Roy: Played well and heady all night long. Made smart plays, but was unable to finish on a few plays where he actually found a crease and got to the rim. Near the end of the game I felt he started to force it too early. Played solid defense, only getting burned a couple of times by Ray Allen, but most of the time he was as close to Allen as most players get, you know how it is, Ray Ray only needs a split second to get his shot off.

Dan Dickau: I thought he played pretty well. I didn't expect much of Dickau coming in, but when I watched him play, he seemed to be playing like the Dickau that was traded and went on to become a starter elsewhere. He was hitting his shots, agressive, did a good job initiating the offense. Defense, well, it was not the highest level, but he wasn't a liability either. 

Sergio Rodriguez: I have a new nickname for him: Electricity. He reminds me of a speedy, 6'2" version of Sabonis. Crafty. Hit Joel in the side of the head with a pass he wasn't expecting. The Blazer players better get ready to receive passes if they are even the slightest bit open, because he will find you with the eyes in the back of his head. He made a few stellar plays in the first half, and shows he has excellent shooting range. In the second half he made a few mistakes (one of them bad, but I think it was more of the teams fault for not running the floor, which I think he expected them to do.) and got yanked. Very crafty. I look forward to seeing him play more.

Joel Pryzbilla: Exactly what I expected out of Joel: A solid game, solid effort. Seems to still be getting his timing on blocks, as a lot were late and called goal tends. Magloire has more offensive moves, but is more of a position defender and less of a weak side help. 

Hamilton: Seems like he might be a good guy to have the on the end of the bench. He knows how to play and has good senses, but makes mistakes here and there. 

Team: Good effort,they hit the floor going after balls a lot, and the crowd gave them a good response for it. 

Coach: Nate really needed to get the T he got in the 3rd quarter, not the 4th. He waited way too long to stand up for the team and let the refs know what he thought of their officiating. Overall good job though.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Thanks to everyone for the details!!!

iWatas


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

A lot has been said so I'll just try to add a few different perspectives:

Zach: right now, he is the best player on the team without a doubt. I thought the boos for that shot was harsh. It was a bad play and poor shot selection, but he had been showing effort (boards, playing down low) all night and it was just one play. It was good to see the boos fired him up to the point he chased down the ball on defense, dove and stole the ball. But at some point the boos are going to have a negative effect on him (just my take)

Sergio: put me in the excited camp. He showed a lot in just 3 mins in that first half. He is very quick at pushing the ball up, not too small, solid passing, and showed basketball sense. My favorite part was when he hit his second three and then raised his arms towards the crowd. (It indicated to me that he gets it, he hits a big three and then gets the crowd into the moment.)

Roy: he's got size. I see the potential and why media and coaches are excited about him. Hopefully that wasn't his best game . . . once he gets into the flow and becomes more aggressive, I see him being a consistent scorer. I watched him defend Allen. Again, Roy has length and defended well, but Allen was just making tough shots with Roy right in his face . . . welcome to the NBA Roy

Martell: he can hit the open shot . . . that is about the only good thing I can say. I hope Martell turns into the player this board talks about, but I'm not a believer at this stage. He is obviously young and can develop, but unlike many here, I don't think it is a foregone conclusion that Webster turns into a quality NBA starter.

Jack: others have posted about his solid game. One concern I have is when he is pressured bringing the ball up the court. Luke was giving him a hell of a time in the first quarter. Not overly concerned, but I think the book on Jack will be to pressure him early.

Dixon: with this young group, I like having Dixon on the team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

> Dixon: with this young group, I like having Dixon on the team.




LOL and there goes your credibility. 


I agree with you about Roy. What I'd like to see is the coaching stff go to him amd say this. "Hey listen, you are the face of the franchise. We want you to put the ball up, make plays, and be aggressive."


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> LOL and there goes your credibility.


I said I was going to try and give different perspectives from others. :biggrin:


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Was listening to the game on KXL.com. While there were definitely
some positives, no one has pointed out how badly the Blazers lost.
The scoreboard says 10, but the sonics should have made at least
5 or 6 more free throws, and they usually would.

Of course, this could turn into a positive - a teaching lesson on
"playing the whole game." I hope it works.

On Juan: I think he's OK, but my question is "do you want a guy
that's so inconsistent?" (except on the defensive end :biggrin: )
Do you want a guy who will shoot you in, or shoot you out? Maybe
as a 12th man, a la Tracy Murray, but gunners don't provide
leadership. So, him being a "veteran" is meaningless. My real
problem with Juan, isn't his play, though. My real problem is that
NM will put him in the rotation if he's on the team.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I'm probably going to repeat some of what has been said, but I'll give my views on the game since I was able to go.

Roy: Had a real off night. Made some "rookie" mistakes (no surprise there) and wasn't shooting very well. That being said the refs also called him like a rookie. There were a couple plays where they either called a carry or didn't call an obvious fall on him. It was real nice seeing him stuff a Ray Allen shot in the first quarter though.

Sergio: My first time actually seeing him outside of highlight reels. I was impressed. He had a couple good entry passes (even surprised everyone including Joel with one of them). I think the bigs are going to end up liking him if he keeps that up. Also was nice to see him hitting the 3, I wasn't sure how good his shooting was going to be (still not as it's only one game, but it's a good sign). I think he should've played a bit more personally. The lineup with Sergio, Jack and Roy in it had some great ball movement.

Zach: He still was drifting outside a bit much for my taste, but was also working inside more then he seemed to last year. As for the incident where he got booed, basically he had the ball just inside the 3-point line. He dribbled a bit without shaking his man. Looked both ways and then took a bad shot with a hand directly in his face with 17 seconds left on the shot clock. I cursed under my breath, others booed. I would rather people not boo for that, though I understand why they did. It was a terrible decision.

Jamaal: Came in looking real good. Made a few early baskets and was pulling down rebounds. Seemed to dissapear in the 2nd half however. 

Outlaw: I think he may finally get it. He never looked lost to me out there like he often did last season. He was playing well in the offense (he missed a few three's that he should've made, but they were good shots as he was open). On defense he has definitely worked on his shot blocking as he repeatedly was challenging shots from the weak side. Even had one fairly spectacular block where he seemed to come out of nowhere and rise above everyone. Also was using his leaping ability to secure rebounds, which was nice to see. I think (hope) he sees a lot more play time this year.

Martell: Shot well, was moving well without the ball. Was maybe a little to aggressive on D. Fouled out. Not a spectacular game for him, but solid.

Dickau: Played well in his minutes. Took smart shots, moved the ball well. Basically just what you want out of a point. I hope his ankle holds up , because I think he can contribute. Nate stuck him and Jack on the floor at the same time a few times. 

Dixon: Not sure if he did anything besides miss shots. Not one of his better games.

Overall glad to see the game. Was a real blast in the first half, though it became downright depressing in the 4th quarter. I missed my basketball, thank god the offseason is over.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

People can boo whenever they want, but I can't believe that anyone thinks that fans booing in a preseason game (where the team was winning, iirc) based on a single shot (however bad it was) is not a bad thing.

This team is going to lose games. A lot of games. Booing in the preseason is ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Went to the game with my grandson. My inpressions, the team tried to move the ball better but it is for now a go inside game and hopfully kick it out type of offense. An exciting game even thoughit was preseason. 

Roy will be Ok when he gets more familliar with the offense and his team mates. He had his hands full playing D with Ray Allan. I thought that he got fouled on one of the drives to the basket. In the 4 he and the other guards got pressured defensevily and they were not able to get the ball inside in a good spot for Zack.

Webster foulded out trying to play against Lewis at the three. Web will probably struggle with those kind of players. He can keep guys in front of him most of the time but is slow to get out on the guick good shooters. 

Zack did Ok I thought but did not do very well on defensive rebounds. The outside shots were Ok in the mix of things.

Sergio is Mr Excitment! You just expect something to happen and the pace of the game changes to faster. He is so much better at bringing the ball up the court and getting into the play than anyone else as of yet. He played very much like he did for the Spanaish National Team and expected people to run with him. He threw away a drive to the basket because no one was running down the center of the court. He did that same pass several times to the Spanish centers (Gasol brothers). It looked very poor but you tell he expected some one to be doing that. (will Nate do that?) Someone said that with he and Roy and Jack they had the best movement and that is so. Another thing he does well is move without the ball. This whole team could take note.

Maglorie was very active early but appeared out of shape to me, more so than anyone else. Hamilton has an active game approch and may do alright as a reserve.

Outlaw did quite well I thought but did not hit some of his threes that he was making in SL. He may very well be a good back up for Zack. 

Would have liked to see Raef and how his game fits. I think he may be a good but different style. 

Miles??

Well that is all, sorry to be so wordy.

gatopops


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> People can boo whenever they want, but I can't believe that anyone thinks that fans booing in a preseason game (where the team was winning, iirc) based on a single shot (however bad it was) is not a bad thing.
> 
> This team is going to lose games. A lot of games. Booing in the preseason is ridiculous.
> 
> Ed O.


said the man who wasn't there and didn't see WHY they were booing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> said the man who wasn't there and didn't see WHY they were booing.


"turn around ...Bright eyes....Turn around...every now and then I fall apart..."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> said the man who wasn't there and didn't see WHY they were booing.


There's no conceivable (legal) play that could justify booing him in a preseason game. Period.

Based on the accounts in this thread, and the utter astonishment of the Sonics play-by-play guy (who, unlike some Blazers fans, doesn't have an axe to grind with Zach), I'd say that it's not even something to boo over in the regular season of a blowout, let alone a preseason game the Blazers were winning.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> There's no conceivable (legal) play that could justify booing him in a preseason game. Period.
> 
> Based on the accounts in this thread, and the utter astonishment of the Sonics play-by-play guy (who, unlike some Blazers fans, doesn't have an axe to grind with Zach), I'd say that it's not even something to boo over in the regular season of a blowout, let alone a preseason game the Blazers were winning.
> 
> Ed O.


again, said the man who wasn't at the game and didn't see Zach go 1 on 3, missing opportunties to pass to at least 2 of his WIDE OPEN teammates, and put up an ill-advised shot. And furthermore, when he shot that shot, they *weren't* winning, they were in the middle of a bunch of Zach Randolph/Jamaal Magloire offensive deadends.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> There's no conceivable (legal) play that could justify booing him in a preseason game. Period.
> 
> Based on the accounts in this thread, and the utter astonishment of the Sonics play-by-play guy (who, unlike some Blazers fans, doesn't have an axe to grind with Zach), I'd say that it's not even something to boo over in the regular season of a blowout, let alone a preseason game the Blazers were winning.
> 
> Ed O.


I'm not saying you are...but that is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've read. Zach killed the momentum when he single handedly tried to take over....And we were already had the momentum.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> There's no conceivable (legal) play that could justify booing him in a preseason game. Period.
> 
> Ed O.


How about this... I justify it because hes a foolish ******* who cant pull his head out of his ***. He's no better than Stephon Marbury on the court...A walking stat machine that isn't a winner. And in Stat-Bos case, is a loser in his off the court life too. A power Forward has absolutely no business playing outsied in by going 1 on 1 from 18 feet out then getting double teamed, hell triple teamed because the defense knows they can leave their guy cause the ball is going up. Then to have your really only interior offensive threat jacking up bombs when there are others open...Stupid stupid basket ball but all that counts is the stat line eh? What ever happened to only caring about winning? All Zach cares about is Zach and dip**** plays like that one prove it. He's the same Stat Bo that has been the offensive focus of our team as they have gotten progressively worse when the ball is in his hands more.

He's Antoine Walker minus the athleticism...Ohh what Antoine isn't athletic? He's still Walker minus the athleticism....Ohh yeah and minus the outside shot.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> How about this... I justify it because hes a foolish ******* who cant pull his head out of his ***. He's no better than Stephon Marbury on the court...A walking stat machine that isn't a winner. And in Stat-Bos case, is a loser in his off the court life too. A power Forward has absolutely no business playing outsied in by going 1 on 1 from 18 feet out then getting double teamed, hell triple teamed because the defense knows they can leave their guy cause the ball is going up. Then to have your really only interior offensive threat jacking up bombs when there are others open...Stupid stupid basket ball but all that counts is the stat line eh? What ever happened to only caring about winning? All Zach cares about is Zach and dip**** plays like that one prove it. He's the same Stat Bo that has been the offensive focus of our team as they have gotten progressively worse when the ball is in his hands more.
> 
> He's Antoine Walker minus the athleticism...Ohh what Antoine isn't athletic? He's still Walker minus the athleticism....Ohh yeah and minus the outside shot.


ohh yeah and minus the Shimmy dance....Thanks for reminding me


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> again, said the man who wasn't at the game and didn't see Zach go 1 on 3, missing opportunties to pass to at least 2 of his WIDE OPEN teammates, and put up an ill-advised shot.


Why do I need to SEE it? That's ridiculous.

I have read the accounts of the shot. It sounds like something that happens several times a game in the NBA. It sounds like something that the best player/leading scorer on ANY NBA team does.

I heard David Locke (who WAS watching the game) express surprise and sort of a smug, "What are these fans thinking?" tone of voice when the booing happened.

I don't need to see the game to know that booing Zach in the first preseason game is ridiculous.



> And furthermore, when he shot that shot, they *weren't* winning, they were in the middle of a bunch of Zach Randolph/Jamaal Magloire offensive deadends.


OK. My fault. I thought that Seattle was catching up but hadn't caught them yet.

Looking at Zach's misses and the play-by-play  let's look at the shot clock remaining so we can determine which shot was the one where some of you think booing was justified:

1. 11:26 left in first (6 seconds on shot clock). Missed layup.
2. 9:45 left in first (5 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 16 footer along right baseline.
3. 3:04 left in first (14 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 20 footer from top of the key.
4. 5:52 left in second (7 seconds left on shot clock). Missed layup.
5. 3:10 left in second (3 second left on shot clock). Blocked 6 footer in the key.
6. 11:45 left in third (9 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 18 footer along right baseline.
7. 6:45 left in third (6 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 9 foot hook on left block.
8. 7:16 left in fourth (9 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 20 foot jumper.
9. 5:03 left in fourth (9 seconds left on shot clock). Missed 4 foot hook in the key.

So it sounds like people in this thread are exaggerating things about how much time was left on the shot clock, how many outside jumpers he was missing, etc. Which is cool, but goes to show that "watching the game" can distort perspective.

I am thinking that the booing came with 7:16 left in the game. Zach had drawn a foul on Collison the previous possession and then stole the ball on the defensive end before shooting with 9 seconds left on the shot clock. Even assuming that he dribbled the ball up himself and just stood there before shooting a 20 footer, I don't see how booing him is anything other than an emotional overreaction.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

You can't hear flow.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Few more comments I forgot:

Sergio got a huge ovation coming out on the floor. Bigger than Roy's in the opening introductions!

Seattle worked us the whole game. Down by 8-10 didn't mean anything when Ray was out the whole second quarter. They showed veteran savvy and waited to let us fall apart at the end. Great lesson.

Having Miles would have made a huge difference and I don't think Dixon would have seen minutes if he would have been playing. Moving Webster to the 2 where he belong ( no offense to MW)

The guard rotation worked, except Dixon, and I think they were all comfortable with which ever role they were told to play and different times. Switched defenders well and played decent zone. Luke and Watson weren't able to do much and noone can really stop Ray. If Ray wants a basket, he makes a basket, defended or not.

The PF/C rotation really needs some ironing out. They all seemed to be on there own agenda and not aware of the guards. I think bringing in Raef to pull the defense away from Zach will be huge. I am afraid there will be an odd man out. Hopefully it won't be Raef because we should some great outside shooting, which could be a great feature of this team. I didn't hear much grunting from the post and that is a red flag to me that there needs to be more fire down low, else pass it out.

The inflatable mascots were hilarious, if I was on mushrooms I don't think I ever would have stopped laughing.

What is up with playing C&C music factory all night. It didn't help the offense the first time. Why pund it to death. Need more rock epics. This is Portland, remember who your audiance is.

Last, PASS THE F'in BALL. Get two extra passes and the man will be open. Don't put it on the floor!

All in all it was a decent show.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> I'm not saying you are...but that is perhaps one of the dumbest things I've read. Zach killed the momentum when he single handedly tried to take over....And we were already had the momentum.


When did Zach kill the momentum single-handedly?

When Juan shot a 19 foot jumper with 6 seconds on the shot clock a minute and a half into the fourth? 
When Juan Dixon scored with 5 seconds on the shot clock on a pass from Dickau the next possession? 
When he made a 3 footer with 14 seconds on the shot clock the next possession? 
When Juan missed a jumper with 5 seconds on the shot clock the next possession? 
When Sergio travelled with 13 seconds on the shot clock the next possession?
When he got fouled by Collison with 11 seconds on the shot clock on the next possession?

Those were the six previous possessions before he was booed. I didn't see the game, so I'd be fascinated to hear how that was Zach "single handedly trying to take over". There was a shot clock violation to start the quarter, and I can see how THAT might have been Zach's fault, but other than that and possibly the Juan missed shot with the shot clock running down, it seems like a stretch to say.

I think it's more likely that you're seeing what you want to see because you don't like Zach than that you actually are being accurate.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Why do I need to SEE it? That's ridiculous.


no it isn't. radio doesn't present the whole picture. you obviously don't have the knowledge of the fact that zach had reverted back to Stat-bo ball, and played in a game of his own.

it was a stupid play, done by a stupid player, in a critical time of the game.



> I have read the accounts of the shot. It sounds like something that happens several times a game in the NBA. It sounds like something that the best player/leading scorer on ANY NBA team does.


cept usually the leading scorer of the team won't take a shot thats outside of his game/skill set, or repeatidly take shots outside of his skill-set ignoring other players on his team that are open. If he was in the paint, sure. But he was 18+ feet out while surrounded by Sonic players.


> I heard David Locke (who WAS watching the game) express surprise and sort of a smug, "What are these fans thinking?" tone of voice when the booing happened.


so what? he was boo'd because Zach proved he hasn't changed his game at all. He THINKS he's the best player on the team, but he's an inbetween player. He's inbetween who WAS good (sheed) and who will be better than Zach (whoever that is).



> I don't need to see the game to know that booing Zach in the first preseason game is ridiculous.


that is the biggest ****ing pile of **** I've heard since Tlong went on his 18 month telfair whine fest. I was at the game, and he got boo'd ONCE. For taking a STUPID shot, when there were players open, and he played outside of the flow of the offense.



> OK. My fault. I thought that Seattle was catching up but hadn't caught them yet.
> 
> Looking at Zach's misses and the play-by-play  let's look at the shot clock remaining so we can determine which shot was the one where some of you think booing was justified:
> 
> ...


with the exception of the 2 seconds left, most of those don't exactly say that he was being rushed. And how many of those (including the play in question) did he try to go 1 on X? Because he was going 1 on 3 when he made that pathetic shot.



> I am thinking that the booing came with 7:16 left in the game. Zach had drawn a foul on Collison the previous possession and then stole the ball on the defensive end before shooting with 9 seconds left on the shot clock. Even assuming that he dribbled the ball up himself and just stood there before shooting a 20 footer, I don't see how booing him is anything other than an emotional overreaction.
> 
> Ed O.


because Zach is not a guard. Pass to a guard, he's not quick enough or athletic enough to bring the ball up and then run into traffic. He made a stupid play, and it's not like Nate (who was visibly pissed) was exactly happy about that shot either. And gosh, I'll trump your David Locke with Nate McMillan.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> When did Zach kill the momentum single-handedly?
> 
> When Juan shot a 19 foot jumper with 6 seconds on the shot clock a minute and a half into the fourth?
> When Juan Dixon scored with 5 seconds on the shot clock on a pass from Dickau the next possession?
> ...


again, reading stats does not = being at the game.


----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

I had a very different take on the game last night. I've read through peoples comments and I wonder if I saw the same game that everyone else did? Here are my thoughts. And as a little succulent treat to you reading my comments. I've attached images to photo's I took last night.

*Overall*
I thought the game was very good and productive. The team played hard and worked hard. I was really impressed by the effort put in my a number of people. The atmosphere in the stadium was cautious optimism. You can tell that fans really want the team to succeed. they want something to cheer for. When the team does those x-factor things the fans notice, the fans care, and they let them know it. Conversely, when the team is playing stupid and the players make bad choices....the fans are equally ready to let them know it.

What amazed me was the lack of knowledge about the team from the "fans" in my section. At least the ones within earshot. Their comments and statements were such that they couldn't even name half the team. Granted half the team is new, but they were still spouting information about the team that was old, miss guided or just plain false.

*Zach*
As Zach goes, so goes the team. I was happy to see him play facing the basket closer in for portions of the game, but as is shown in one of the photo's below...he still floats the outside and loves that jumper. He really needs to get into the block. Yea he's going to have to work for it and yea he will get his shot rejected more....but he's a tank in there when he wants to be. He didn't feel as selfish to watch play. I didn't get the feeling that he was an all consuming black hole with the ball....which brings me to....

*Magloire*
Watching him play last night took me only a minute to figure out who he reminded me of. If you took Zach and mashed him together with Ruben Patterson, you would have Magloire. He was an absolute black hole with the ball last night. The ball went in and you knew it wasn't coming back out. Like ruben, he would just duck his head and plow in. I have to say I wasn't all that impressed. If you wanna call that an offensive game fine. Yes, he looks to score more then Pryz without being setup. Joel needs a setup or a pick and roll. But I'm not sold on Magloire.

*Dan D.*
Of all the players on the court, Dan impressed me the most. I wasn't expecting him to play. Here he comes in and for much of the game is the leading scorer. His passes were crisp, he had an eye for scoring and he had poise and experience. I don't know if anyone noticed but he was out on the court ALOT. much much more then I ever dreamed of with all the talk of Jack and Roy at the point. Kudo's to Dan. You put in the effort and it really showed.

*The Guards in General*
I'm worried about our point guard situation. A large portion of our turn overs came from our guards play and their passing. Jack struggled just dribbling the ball last night. Roy too had trouble moving with the ball. At least half of the passes were fumbled either at the passers end or at the receivers end. The damn ball just didn't seem to want to stick in anyones hands. Perhaps that was Seattles defense, perhaps it was our players. It sure looked like our players. On the positive side, the guards busted their butts. They worked hard and it showed. I appreciated seeing them dive for the ball, jump out on players and try to play good defense. The ofense however still had the guards waving people around trying to get them in places. Guess that's what pre-season is for.

*Roy and Sergio*
I liked them, but I still maintain my favorite player is Martell. He's just got an ease about him that I like. But I'm swiftly getting into the Sergio fan club. I think that he's going to really turn out to be a great point guard. He did score some quick fouls. Roy, was timid. It was like he took a back seat to all the other players. Didn't appear to show the leadership and poise that everyone is always talking about. In watching the game it seemed like he was filling in his appointed space, something I get from most of the new guys. They aren't demanding the ball and taking it to the other team. They are standing around kinda watching the offense happen. Our guards and 2 guards really need to push the other team. Make them react to us.

In the end it was fun. I loved watching the pile up on the court as they dove for that loose ball. I have a picture down here of them untangling the pile. Notice Martell was at the bottom. I loved Travis and his monster block from the weak side. I loved the alley-oop to Martell for the dunk. I loved the strong outside shooting by our guards. There is so much to look forward to on this team. I'm just plain excited. 

*Click on a picture for a bigger version*


----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

This BTW was a gorgeous no look pass to an outside shooter. For three!!! Sweet. Go Sergio


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> When did Zach kill the momentum single-handedly?
> 
> When Juan shot a 19 foot jumper with 6 seconds on the shot clock a minute and a half into the fourth?
> When Juan Dixon scored with 5 seconds on the shot clock on a pass from Dickau the next possession?
> ...


Try watching a before you form an opinion of flow. You of all psople should understand intangibles can't be read of a play by play or stat sheet.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

"Overall glad to see the game. Was a real blast in the first half, though it became downright depressing in the 4th quarter. I missed my basketball, thank god the offseason is over."

Quoting Foulzilla..............I was there and that is exactly how it felt to me. We need improvement and some confidence, I think it will develop. 
First game of pre-season what can you expect. I think we can have a first and second team and not give away too much as far as talent. I look forward to the next couple of years as they improve. I think if we build on what we have talent wise we will be very good not too far in the future. I would cut Zach some slack as he played well.......I did mumble when he tried that outside shot with too much time left on the shot clock. Got to see a monster block and dunk from Outlaw :clap: Sergio is going to get us on our feet more than a few times this year. Dan D. is a solid point guard, Roy is good but needs a little time, JJ is also solid at point. Martell seemed nervous. I like Pryz better than Magloire.

Best part of the game was that it was FREE. Now if I can figure out how to keep it free in the regular season :yes:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> no it isn't. radio doesn't present the whole picture. you obviously don't have the knowledge of the fact that zach had reverted back to Stat-bo ball, and played in a game of his own.


What do you mean "had reverted"? Was he playing differently earlier in the game?

The stats don't support your position, which is odd since it seems that you're claiming he changed his focus to accumulating stats.



> it was a stupid play, done by a stupid player, in a critical time of the game.


Was it as stupid as the Sergio travel immediately before the shot and the Sergio turnover immediately after the shot?



> cept usually the leading scorer of the team won't take a shot thats outside of his game/skill set, or repeatidly take shots outside of his skill-set ignoring other players on his team that are open. If he was in the paint, sure. But he was 18+ feet out while surrounded by Sonic players.


Where's the "repeatedly taking shots outside of his skill set"? You're just making **** up, dude. Look at the shots he missed and where and when he missed them. The missed 20 footer wasn't part of a pattern of him bombing away in a critical part of the game. It was a shot that a confident scorer will take when he's trying to take over offensively. Not a big deal.



> so what? he was boo'd because Zach proved he hasn't changed his game at all. He THINKS he's the best player on the team, but he's an inbetween player. He's inbetween who WAS good (sheed) and who will be better than Zach (whoever that is).


He is what he is. He's the same player that he was when Portland drafted him. The same player that he was when he signed his big deal.

He scored 20 points on 16 shots. He had 3 steals and only one turnover. He wasn't the reason the Blazers lost the lead or the game, and booing him wasn't justified.



> that is the biggest ****ing pile of **** I've heard since Tlong went on his 18 month telfair whine fest. I was at the game, and he got boo'd ONCE. For taking a STUPID shot, when there were players open, and he played outside of the flow of the offense.


Booing for one play is an emotional overreaction. You watched the game and you seem to have some vision that Zach was hogging the ball and jacking up outside shots, when he wasn't shooting that many outside shots. Period.



> with the exception of the 2 seconds left, most of those don't exactly say that he was being rushed. And how many of those (including the play in question) did he try to go 1 on X? Because he was going 1 on 3 when he made that pathetic shot.


When he took it, or when he made it?

I'm not too concerned with a single play where a player tries to score over three guys. If he'd been doing it repeatedly? I could see it as an issue. As the shot chart and play-by-play demonstrate, he wasn't doing that.



> because Zach is not a guard. Pass to a guard, he's not quick enough or athletic enough to bring the ball up and then run into traffic. He made a stupid play, and it's not like Nate (who was visibly pissed) was exactly happy about that shot either. And gosh, I'll trump your David Locke with Nate McMillan.


Yeah, Nate's been a heck of a coach. He's really getting the best out of all his players here.

Of course he's more objective than a visiting team's play-by-play guy when it comes to when fans should boo a player.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> again, reading stats does not = being at the game.


Being at the game is irrelevant.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Try watching a before you form an opinion of flow. You of all psople should understand intangibles can't be read of a play by play or stat sheet.


Answer my question. When did he kill momentum?

Surely, since you saw the game, you can point to some specifics. Right?

When he went out of the game in the third, Portland had a 7 point lead. It was a two point lead when he re-entered to start the fourth. How did we still have momentum at that point for him to "kill" it?

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Being at the game is irrelevant.
> 
> Ed O.


yah, because the ticker sure gives the whole picture.

and god knows that the other fans at the game who were booing were mistaken and you are correct.

and the coach who was not happy about it too. he was wrong. you and locke were right.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Being at the game is irrelevant.
> 
> Ed O.


Thats absurd. In fact that is "Riccola...Ridiculous". Ok what happened in the 18 seconds before Juan bricked his shot he took? how about in the 19 seconds before Juan made his only shot? 

Not being there you also are clueless to the fact that Sergio in fact didn't travel....Ohh wait you can assess good calls vs. bad calls by looking at that play by play sheet.


You could read 20 books on the Game of Cricket, but unless you watch it you will never understand the subtle nuances.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

There were more than "one" momentum killer. How many times were we up by 8+ points and let the Sonics come back? To me the biggest momentum killer came in the fourth quarter when the refs seemed to be on acid. We may still have lost, but not by 10 points.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> yah, because the ticker sure gives the whole picture.


Who's saying that. No one.

But it gives BASIC FACTS. Like that Zach wasn't shooting from the outside when the lead disippated, and was (in fact) on the bench. 



> and god knows that the other fans at the game who were booing were mistaken and you are correct.


Are you claiming that every time a crowd boos it's justified?

At some level, it's true: fans can boo whenever they want, so when they boo _by definition_ it's OK. Discussing that level is silly, though, so I'm focused on whether the booing was justified and good for the player and team in the long run.



> and the coach who was not happy about it too. he was wrong. you and locke were right.


Does Nate have a great history of getting the most out of his players? Of running a good offense? Of winning a lot of games?

He's the coach, and of course he knows more about basketball than I ever will in a hundred years. But he's not always right.

Ed O.


----------



## rx2web (Jul 27, 2004)

Well after reading the last page and all the bickering, I've lost all the thrill and excitement I had about the game. I value peoples opinions even when they differ from my own, but damn.

Thanks guys.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Not being there you also are clueless to the fact that Sergio in fact didn't travel....Ohh wait you can assess good calls vs. bad calls by looking at that play by play sheet.


Ah... he didn't travel, huh? Well, fortunately you are here to set the record straight. I think you should email David Stern and tell him that, since you were AT THE GAME, the travel didn't happen.

I'm sure he'd buy it.

Ed O.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

rx2web said:


> Well after reading the last page and all the bickering, I've lost all the thrill and excitement I had about the game. I value peoples opinions even when they differ from my own, but damn.
> 
> Thanks guys.


Kind of ruins my high too...........  How about a group hug? :ghug:


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Ah... he didn't travel, huh? Well, fortunately you are here to set the record straight. I think you should email David Stern and tell him that, since you were AT THE GAME, the travel didn't happen.
> 
> I'm sure he'd buy it.
> 
> Ed O.


Wether it was called or not is irrelevant, though I can make the judgement ...imagine this one Ed *FROM HAVING SEEN IT* to realize that you trotting out that was a turnover wasn't by fault of the player. Especially when you are using it as evidence to support your theory. 

Are you saying that bad calls don't affect individual plays? If so you are insinuating that the player is at fault simply from being there? Or are you saying there are never bad calls?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

rx2web said:


> *Zach*
> As Zach goes, so goes the team. I was happy to see him play facing the basket closer in for portions of the game, but as is shown in one of the photo's below...he still floats the outside and loves that jumper. He really needs to get into the block. Yea he's going to have to work for it and yea he will get his shot rejected more....but he's a tank in there when he wants to be. He didn't feel as selfish to watch play. I didn't get the feeling that he was an all consuming black hole with the ball....which brings me to....
> 
> *Magloire*
> ...


Enjoyed your review . . . I agree about getting the black hole feeling with LM more than Zach. I also agree about the ball handling of Roy and Jack and it being a concern. They might not have had a lot of turnovers, but when pressured, they had a hard time getting the offense going as they were more concentrated on not losing the ball.

The only part I really difer with is Dickau. I know he put up good numbers, got lots of PT, even took a charge . . . but I wasn't as impressed as others here. Can't point to stats to prove my point, but my own thought is he doesn't add much while out there. (all Dickau fans, don't jump on this. Time will tell if he contributes and if I'm wrong I'll gladly admit it then.)


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

bintim70 said:


> Kind of ruins my high too...........  How about a group hug? :ghug:


Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with the game...*Self Edit Rant not Needed and over Line*


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed O said:


> At some level, it's true: fans can boo whenever they want, so when they boo _by definition_ it's OK. Discussing that level is silly, though, so I'm focused on whether the booing was justified and good for the player and team in the long run.


Ed, you crack me up. The reason the fans were booing is because of last season. They saw far too many outside jumpers by Zach. Taken in context, the booing makes sense - they don't want to see, whether this is true or not, Zach ruin the excitement they feel over the rest of the team. Taken out of context as one incident in a pre-season game, then yes, you are correct.

Let it go, Ed...Let it go...there will plenty of games available to pick apart once the real season arrives.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

what i saw from the game (probably has already been said, but i'm not digging though 9 pages of stuff on a hangover).

sergio is LITTLE. listed at 168 so you know he's somewhere near 150-160. he has a lot of passion for the game but it's going to get him in trouble, like how earl watson abused him for stupid fouls.

brandon roy looks to be overrated as of now. sure it was his first game, but watching him when he played at UW against the ducks he looked solid. last night he didnt seem to be in the game, but he was playing 3 positions.

maggloire is officially the new black hole. everytime the ball would go to him it wouldnt come out. he forced everything.

zach.... just keep calling him Stat-Bo. same ol jump shooting punk who cant shoot. hitting that three towards the end put him at 20. 

it was interesting to see Pritchard sitting by himself for most of the game. i liked how he was on his feet clapping with the crowd during the hustle times.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Ed, you crack me up. The reason the fans were booing is because of last season. They saw far too many outside jumpers by Zach. Taken in context, the booing makes sense - they don't want to see, whether this is true or not, Zach ruin the excitement they feel over the rest of the team. Taken out of context as one incident in a pre-season game, then yes, you are correct.
> 
> Let it go, Ed...Let it go...there will plenty of games available to pick apart once the real season arrives.


If people ADMIT that it was about last season? Or that they just don't like Zach? That's cool. It's their call.

To say that I can't comment on whether the booing was justified because I wasn't at the game? That's just silly.

Ed O.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

you guys are feeding him by continuing to argue with him. he clearly just wants the argument and enjoys getting you riled up.










thanks for the pics


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with the game, more that I am riled to think a person could be *arrogant * enough to think he can read a play by play and know the whole story of a game. And flat out tell multiple people who were inn attendance watching the game that they are wrong in their assesment. Same old condescending hot air.


And how long have you and Ed been on this board? And how many times have you been able to get Ed to back down from an opinion? Nothing against Ed, I value his posts, even though I often disagree with him. There is just no point to filing up a thread with useless content that isn't going to change anything. 

I think you and Hap are correct, but let's move on.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Wether it was called or not is irrelevant, though I can make the judgement ...imagine this one Ed *FROM HAVING SEEN IT* to realize that you trotting out that was a turnover wasn't by fault of the player. Especially when you are using it as evidence to support your theory.


What theory? That you're making **** up because you don't like Zach?



I've asked you where Zach killed momentum, because that seems to be your reason for why booing his one missed jumper in the fourth quarter was justified.

Of course, I'm still waiting and you're attacking me as condescending and full of hot air because you don't have any facts to back up what you're claiming.



> Are you saying that bad calls don't affect individual plays? If so you are insinuating that the player is at fault simply from being there? Or are you saying there are never bad calls?


There are certainly bad calls. It's not Zach's fault that Sergio was called for traveling, I don't think, and considering the traveling came right around the time Zach was (presumably, since you won't answer me) allegedly killing momentum, I find your claim that he "didn't travel" to be hilariously irrelevant.

Ed O.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with the game, more that I am riled to think a person could be arrogant enough to think he can read a play by play and know the whole story of a game. And flat out tell multiple people who were inn attendance watching the game that they are wrong in their assesment. Same old condescending hot air.


Couldn't agree with you more. Sometimes I think it's just arguing for the sake of arguing.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Sorry guys, this has nothing to do with the game, more that I am riled to think a person could be arrogant enough to think he can read a play by play and know the whole story of a game. And flat out tell multiple people who were inn attendance watching the game that they are wrong in their assesment. Same old condescending hot air.



I can't get all that riled up about other posters on this board. I go to the games and my opinion is my opinion. It is all about how I perceive it and the enjoyment or lack of that I get. The only time I usually get jacked up is if someone is slamming the board and then I usually tell them to leave if they don't like OUR board.

I can't see myself getting into a verbal fight with anyone over this board........if I need to fight I'll go visit my ----head neighbor of whom I am not fond at all. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> I think you and Hap are correct, but let's move on.


there's something you don't see very often. Someone thinking I'm correct, and the words "I think...Hap (is) correct" and not followed by "but is still a *******".


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Random thoughts from skimming this thread (I was at the game):

Dickau was a pleasant surprise. He's a good shooter and runs the team well (enough). He makes good decisions. Although he did have trouble staying in front of quick players on defense.

Sergio was awesome. An instant crowd favorite. While he doesn't have Telfair's blow-by ability, he'll be a better point guard in every other way. He sees the floor and where players 'should' be like another Blazers No. 11, and he can get guys the ball (if they are paying attention). He'll have some turnovers that aren't his fault (like last night). He got hosed by the refs more than once. Take that, rookie.

stupendous: I don't think it's 'maglure' or 'maglore'. If the name is French/Canadian, it should be "Mug-l-warr".

All the Blazers got floor burns in that game. Even Zach, Magloire and Joel were on the floor. If that and team work are their new identity, the fans are going to cheer them like crazy. 

Jack had a little trouble in the first half with Frodo's defense. Crazy, I know.

"Juan (one) shot a minute" Dixon sux. Period.

Zach is thinner and can score well when he sticks to his quick inside game. He played better on defense, even getting some steals and deflections, although there were times when his man scored on him with little difficulty. He even got some assists. Then he ruined a pretty good game by stopping the flow, hogging the ball, making bad plays and taking terrible shots when he tried to 'take over' the game.

Early in the game I thought we were going to win for sure; then at the start of the 4th quarter I could feel that Seattle's experience (such as it is) was going to take the game away from us. That will probably be the story of our season.

Usually I don't take much stock in pre-season practice games, but this didn't feel like that at all. That was our team (sans Raef/Miles/Aldridge), and they played to win against a pretty crummy Seattle team.

Ouch.

Blazer Freak: our section agrees with you on ref no. 55. I hope he doesn't make the regular rotation.

Travis for the first time looked like he belonged in an NBA game. He wasn't lost and played with purpose. He had more confidence and even showed some frustaration with the refs, instead of his past hang-dog sorry coach approach. He missed some shots but was decent overall on offense and his defense and rebounding were exciting. 

Roy had a bigger positive impact on the game than his stats reflect.

I guess that's (more than) enough. I'm only on page two of the game thread.

Cheers.

:cheers:


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

blakejack said:


> you guys are feeding him by continuing to argue with him. he clearly just wants the argument and enjoys getting you riled up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Scary looking isn't he? :mrt: I had to laugh at some of his attempts to attack the basket.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

bintim70 said:


> I go to the games and my opinion is my opinion. It is all about how I perceive it and the enjoyment or lack of that I get.


That's how I see it. Even two people who attended the game and sat in the same section could view the game differently. (Personally, I tend to focus on the PG position much of the game, so I am probably catching a lot of the stuff cameras miss, but missing a lot of stuff at the same time.)

I like this board because it is interesting to see what different fans got out of the game . . . whether watching it live, listening to it, or analyzing the box scores . . . just a lot of different perspectives.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

OK I took out my last post but man you guys quoted fast....A lot of what I like about this board is arguing with Ed. We've met in person shook hands shared a joke or 2, and never threw punches. 

Now all that off....If all Ed wanted is for us to admit that the boos were a trail over from last season. You got it. I booed because IMO the PF should be launching 20 footers when other people are open. All of a sudden in that one play he reverted to Zach of last year. I booed Zach one time, on that one play only, and I cheered for him on the very next play when he dove for a ball going out of bounds.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> OK I took out my last post but man you guys quoted fast....A lot of what I like about this board is arguing with Ed. We've met in person shook hands shared a joke or 2, and never threw punches.


Nope. We get along quite well in real life, like I do with most. People can see me smile, and instantly fall in love with me in person.



> Now all that off....If all Ed wanted is for us to admit that the boos were a trail over from last season. You got it. I booed because IMO the PF should be launching 20 footers when other people are open. All of a sudden in that one play he reverted to Zach of last year. I booed Zach one time, on that one play only, and I cheered for him on the very next play when he dove for a ball going out of bounds.


Fair enough.

Ed O.


----------



## bintim70 (Dec 31, 2002)

We could have the mods set up and EdO and Schilly argument thread.........then we could check up on you two every once in a while. Your post counts would soar, but we wouldn't have to sift through them in other threads. :biggrin: 

I've got like five posts today so I may need to lay down. I have been off work for a little while so I am out of shape.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't see what the big deal is about people booing Zbo on that play. The people in this town know when players make a good play, and when they take a very stupid quick shot from the outside. This was not a mystery. Its not like Zbo was "On fire" and needed to take every shot there was. This was a critical posession when the team was trying to win the game, and he gave Seattle an easy opportunity, because most basketball fans know, the easiest way to give the opposition an running opportunity is to take a bad outside shot so that the opposing team can get out and run, which is exactly what happened. The fans here have seen Zbo long enough to know when he is slacking, and when he is trying hard. They had been treated to Zbo playing hard all game, then fans knew exactly when he had a mental lapse and needed reminded of what kind of play is the right style.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I would have booed too at that play, rolled my eyes and cursed about the shot and I was listening to the radio turned it off with 2:42 left knowing we were going to lose. 

the refs blew and does dixon man he stinks! Zbo needs to learn to make more shots his % is terrible but did make a few free throws. Cant wait for a few trades to be be made JM, ZBo, Miles and dixon and I cant wait for Aldridge and Raef to get healthy including miles only so we can trade miles.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> I don't see what the big deal is about people booing Zbo on that play. The people in this town know when players make a good play, and when they take a very stupid quick shot from the outside. This was not a mystery. Its not like Zbo was "On fire" and needed to take every shot there was. This was a critical posession when the team was trying to win the game, and he gave Seattle an easy opportunity, because most basketball fans know, the easiest way to give the opposition an running opportunity is to take a bad outside shot so that the opposing team can get out and run, which is exactly what happened. The fans here have seen Zbo long enough to know when he is slacking, and when he is trying hard. They had been treated to Zbo playing hard all game, then fans knew exactly when he had a mental lapse and needed reminded of what kind of play is the right style.


Do you think that players are going to hear boos and think, "Boy... the fans sure disapprove! I better work harder for them, by golly!"

No way.

Players don't enjoy being booed by their own fans, and they ESPECIALLY can't like it when they're having a pretty good game and they make a bad decision and INSTANTLY hear about it.

Some players might react positively, but I think that most will either not care because they don't give a crap or not care because they're trying their best to win the game and they know that fans often carry baggage around with them about some players, so a boo doesn't mean much.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

[strike]I think the bottom line to this thread is that Ed O. is wrong. He wasn't there, therefore he has no clue what he was talking about.

Case closed.[/strike]


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I think the bottom line to this thread is that Ed O. is wrong. He wasn't there, therefore he has no clue what he was talking about.
> 
> Case closed.


Let's see what you said earlier in the thread and see who's wrong, shall we?



zagsfan20 said:


> The booing wasn't without reason. Zach was dribbling the ball about 10 times and then shooting ugly outside shots. This was at critical points in the game. They weren't booing because they were losing the lead, it was because of stupid bone-headed shots that we could have gone without.


I've pointed out that Zach did NOT take ugly outside shots. In fact he only took two outside shots the whole fourth quarter (the one where he was booed and the three pointer he made at the end of the game). In fact he only took two outside shots in the third quarter, as well (making one and missing one).

I might not be exactly accurate in my assertions, but I wonder how you can honestly spew such incorrect nonsense and then claim that _I_ have no idea what I'm talking about.

Ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> What theory? That you're making **** up because you don't like Zach?


To keep the fun rolling. I'm not sure what **** I made up. I formulated my opinion based on the observations I made while watching the game in person.



> I've asked you where Zach killed momentum, because that seems to be your reason for why booing his one missed jumper in the fourth quarter was justified.
> 
> Ed O.


I was discouraged by the way the team offense bogs when Zach is focused in in the offensive set...That much is true of my personal eye witnessed account. The Missed deep shot was the straw that broke the camels back, so I booed, the instant the ball left his hand. As I've said I don't want the PF shooting from outside, he's a post player he needs to play in the post, and coincidentally, IMO I think Zach is most effective in the post.

To each his own.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> To keep the fun rolling. I'm not sure what **** I made up. I formulated my opinion based on the observations I made while watching the game in person.


"Zach killed the momentum when he single handedly tried to take over....And we were already had the momentum."

When in the game did this occur?

I acknowledge p-b-p and shot charts and box scores don't tell the whole story, but I can't find how your statement I quote above can be consistent with the actual game.

Ed O.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

i booed because Zach thought he was a SG again.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ok ok...Sorry guys, but I have to do it.

Zach 7 of 16 or .438

3 of 7 (.428) from outside of 16 feet.

4 of 9 (.444) inside 10 feet (all 4 makes inside 5 feet)

43% of a post players shots shouldn't be from outside 16' IMO


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> "Zach killed the momentum when he single handedly tried to take over....And we were already had the momentum."
> 
> When in the game did this occur?
> 
> ...


Game Flow Chart on ESPN.com indicates that momentum shifted with about 2:30 left in the 3rd. Zach took 5 of his 16 shots in the 4th.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I'll add that IIRC the lineup at the time of the momentum shift was Dickau, Dixon, Webster, Travis and Magloire.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Game Flow Chart on ESPN.com indicates that momentum shifted with about 2:30 left in the 3rd. Zach took 5 of his 16 shots in the 4th.


Zach was out of the game when the momentum shifted, if that's when it shifted. Outlaw came in for him with 5:54 left in the third.

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Do you think that players are going to hear boos and think, "Boy... the fans sure disapprove! I better work harder for them, by golly!"
> 
> No way.
> 
> ...


Do I care? If I wish to express my disatisfaction I will. What are you going to do, take my name tag away? :clown:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Do I care? If I wish to express my disatisfaction I will. What are you going to do, take my name tag away? :clown:




I want the team to win. I think that booing players without justification hurts the team's chances with a greater probability than that it helps the team's chances.

Do what you want to do.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> [strike]I think the bottom line to this thread is that Ed O. is wrong. He wasn't there, therefore he has no clue what he was talking about.
> 
> Case closed.[/strike]


I'm sorry, but if you're going to moderate something, don't pretend to delete stuff. It's totally pointless.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I want the team to win. I think that booing players without justification hurts the team's chances with a greater probability than that it helps the team's chances.
> 
> Do what you want to do.
> 
> Ed O.


When I joined this site about a year ago, I noticed the # of posts people have. I was blown away and asked myself, "How in the world could someone have 13,000 posts?" My ? has been answered. Next Topic!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I'm with Ed. I'm philosophically against booing your own team. 

What you have to realize is that these are real people with real feelings. By showing up at the game, you are supposedly going there to root for your team and your city. You're not there to be a coach and let them know when you think they've done a bad job - you're there to encourage the team to improve their chance of winning. There's something called home court advantage and you take that away when you act like a bunch of spoiled brats and boo the players when they make mistakes.

It's Nate's job to give him crap if he did something wrong. Not yours.

It's ridiculous to me to hear people on this board complaining about the team losing and not having a good attitude, and then when given the opportunity to do the absolute *ONLY* thing that a fan can do to make the team better, you boo a player for one stupid play. 

As Ed pointed out, the fact that it came in a preseason game makes it over the top ridiculous.

You can all pile on Ed (or me) if you want to about it, but look yourself in the mirror - stop complaining about X player or Y player about not giving their best to help the team win, when you refuse to do the same.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Zach was out of the game when the momentum shifted, if that's when it shifted. Outlaw came in for him with 5:54 left in the third.
> 
> Ed O.


Yep I could hear that momentum shift right through my radio...good thing KXL comes in super high quality digital surround sound!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I'm sorry, but if you're going to moderate something, don't pretend to delete stuff. It's totally pointless.


Yeah, what's the one-line-through-the-text thing about? It's not like you can't read it because of the line.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I'm with Ed. I'm philosophically against booing your own team.
> 
> What you have to realize is that these are real people with real feelings. By showing up at the game, you are supposedly going there to root for your team and your city. You're not there to be a coach and let them know when you think they've done a bad job - you're there to encourage the team to improve their chance of winning. There's something called home court advantage and you take that away when you act like a bunch of spoiled brats and boo the players when they make mistakes.
> 
> ...


For the first 8 billion games of Zach's career, people cheer. One game they boo because he made a moronic decision that he made many, many times last year. I think the big guy (making millions that WE are paying for) can handle it for one game.

As for Ed, I've met him in real life - he looks like Robert Swift, only he's about 4' 8".


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Seattle, a team nobody expects to see in the playoffs, just completely mopped the floor with us.

Last year's team would have won this game.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> Seattle, a team nobody expects to see in the playoffs, just completely mopped the floor with us.


what game were you watching? The one where the Sonics trailed after 1, trailed at half, and trailed after 3? Thats considered "mopping" the floor with a team?



> Last year's team would have won this game.


uh..no.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Hap said:


> what game were you watching? The one where the Sonics trailed after 1, trailed at half, and trailed after 3? Thats considered "mopping" the floor with a team?


The one where the Sonics bench players outscored us by 18 pts after halftime and beat us by 10 pts.

And they're not even a good team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> The one where the Sonics bench players outscored us by 18 pts after halftime and beat us by 10 pts.
> 
> And they're not even a good team.




I'm just not sure what your point is. The Sonics ARE a bad team, but the Blazers are a worse team. The Blazers were the worst team in the league last year, and while getting better long term, we got less experienced in some key possitions, and still run the offense through Zach


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Seattle, a team nobody expects to see in the playoffs, just completely mopped the floor with us.
> 
> Last year's team would have won this game.


Did you watch games last season? This is exactly the kind of thing that was happening last season too. As a matter of fact while I was sitting there watching I had a strange feeling of deja-vue.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> For the first 8 billion games of Zach's career, people cheer. One game they boo because he made a moronic decision that he made many, many times last year. I think the big guy (making millions that WE are paying for) can handle it for one game.


Is your position that the fans have never booed Zach Randolph before?

I find that hard to believe.

Why would they pick the 2006 preseason to start if he made the same mistakes that he's been making for years?

The point is that I bet the Blazers have been booed A LOT by the fans over the past few years. What message do you think this really sends them? 

Does it help them win games? No.

Does it make them want to stay in Portland? No.

So why do it? 

The answer is that some fans would rather act like children than try to give their team the best possible chance to win the game. 

That would be acceptable (i guess) if it wasn't coupled with accusations by these same people that the players aren't doing enough.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Is your position that the fans have never booed Zach Randolph before?
> 
> I find that hard to believe.
> 
> ...


My position is that fans haven't singled out Randolph for his wild arse shots from beyond the Arctic Circle before. And if they have, then apparently he hasn't got the intelligence to figure out that's not where he should be shooting.

How is booing acting like children? So if you go into a restaurant and they totally screw up your order and continue to screw up your order, you should cheer them on because they are "your restaurant"???? Riiggghhhtttt..

These are millionaires. They are putting a product on display, namely basketball entertainment. If they can't take cheering when they do well and booing when they do bad, then perhaps they should get into some non-public line of work. Chances are they don't really care one way or the other. I have yet to see Randolph change his gameplan because people are cheering. When he does, please leave me an urgent IM.


----------

