# Dear Randolph Detractors....



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I present today's game as exhibit "A" as why Zach Randolph is ultimately an asset for this team and should be immediately commended.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I present this thread as exhibit "A" as why the mods need to learn how to merge.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I agree. I thought he did a great job of holding the ball and letting our guards get out of sinc. He also did a great job on his help defense as usual. Oh, and he was the man when it came to passing out of the low post. The Blazers built a 16 point lead or something like that in the 2nd quarter....I can't remember who was sitting during that, but it looked a lot like Zach. Nate in his ever so brilliant substitution pattern put Randolph back in even though the team was playing better without him. Quickly the 76ers stormed back. 


Yes,I think I'll give the game ball to Zach. After all he made a wide open lay in to win the game.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I present this thread as exhibit "A" as why the mods need to learn how to merge.


I present this reply as exhibit "A" as why Blazer fans need to loosen up and go with the whimsey presented on the board.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

so, that horrific defense on iguodala where he drove the lane and dunked while Zach picked his nose, was good?

Or those two turnovers in a row in the 4th?

Look, nobody has said he's not a good scorer. He is. And he has hit 2 game winners on this trip. Thats a positive. But Damon hit a lot of clutch shots too and game winners. But like Zach, he wasn't one who you should build around or force your offense through all the time.

this thread shouldn't be merged, it should be closed (as the one yesterday should've been closed too).


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

I present this game as a reason why Alan Henderson probably loves playing Zach Randolph.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Xericx said:


> I present this reply as exhibit "A" as why Blazer fans need to loosen up and go with the whimsey presented on the board.


Dude, there are several other threads out there if you go back a few pages. One need only post once in them to top them.

Hmmmmm, let's see. There's a "Keep Randolph" thread (maybe appropriate for you), several "Trade Randolph" threads, and then a similar attempt and serving up crow from yesterday.

Take your pick.

(by the way, you passed whimsy a few miles back and are now at mile marker 'obnoxious'.)


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

The Sebastian Express said:


> I present this game as a reason why Alan Henderson probably loves playing Zach Randolph.


I would point to the whole season as a reason other teams love to guard JMag and J_el.:biggrin:


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> so, that horrific defense on iguodala where he drove the lane and dunked while Zach picked his nose, was good?
> 
> Or those two turnovers in a row in the 4th?
> 
> Look, nobody has said he's not a good scorer. He is. And he has hit 2 game winners on this trip. Thats a positive. But Damon hit a lot of clutch shots too and game winners. But like Zach, he wasn't one who you should build around or force your offense through all the time.


Why do you only focus on Zach? Nobody played well, this was pathetic from start to finish. 

You act like he's the reason players catch the ball out of bounds, or miss wide open shots, or continuously charge on the rare fast-break, or don't know when the shot-clock is up, or aren't ready to catch the ball when they're wide open, etc. etc. etc... Am I to believe that everyone within a fifty foot radius of Zach becomes instantly retarded? If so, then your arguement might make sense. 

Oh and to single him out as a bad defender after all the layins others on the team game up all game long is amazing to me. You have so much tunnel vision on Zach's deficiencies that you don't even notice everyone elses.

We sucked yesterday and we sucked today. It's a team effort.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I agree. I thought he did a great job of holding the ball and letting our guards get out of sinc. He also did a great job on his help defense as usual. Oh, and he was the man when it came to passing out of the low post. The Blazers built a 16 point lead or something like that in the 2nd quarter....I can't remember who was sitting during that, but it looked a lot like Zach. Nate in his ever so brilliant substitution pattern put Randolph back in even though the team was playing better without him. Quickly the 76ers stormed back.
> 
> 
> Yes,I think I'll give the game ball to Zach. After all he made a wide open lay in to win the game.



I am intrigued by your thinking and would like to purchase your brochure. However, I'd really like to see Zach out 3 games so we could see whether or not this is just a chance happening.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> I would point to the whole season as a reason other teams love to guard JMag and J_el.:biggrin:



Touche. (I've no idea what the alt code is for the special e, so you're not going to get it )


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I agree. I thought he did a great job of holding the ball and letting our guards get out of sinc. He also did a great job on his help defense as usual. Oh, and he was the man when it came to passing out of the low post.


and here i thought you were one of the more reasonable zach haters.

most of our guys played terribly in this game, including zach. but guess what, zach was still the best blazer out there. and during his 28 minutes of play, he helped us get the win. you know, a win, as in a good thing.



> The Blazers built a 16 point lead or something like that in the 2nd quarter....I can't remember who was sitting during that, but it looked a lot like Zach. Nate in his ever so brilliant substitution pattern put Randolph back in even though the team was playing better without him. Quickly the 76ers stormed back.


damn, why the need to make **** up? 

i watched the same game you did. we led the entire 1st quarter, most of which zach was in. when zach came back in, we led by 15pts. when he came back out again, we held a 13pts lead. so where is this **** that the 6ers stormed their way back from a 16pts lead when zach came back in?

when zach came out in the 3rd quarter, we held a 4pts lead. when he was put back in the game, we were down by 4. zach played the rest of the game and we won by 2pts.

look, i'm not one to put much stock into these sort of thing. there are just too many variables to make any kind of an accurate assessment, especially with small sample size. but to make **** up to prove you have some kind of point against zach is just ridiculous.



> Yes,I think I'll give the game ball to Zach. After all he made a wide open lay in to win the game.


damn right zach gets the game ball. the wide open layup? it was zach that bumped the defender out of the way. i'll take it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ProZach said:


> Why do you only focus on Zach?


this thread is about zach. not the other players who played like crap tonight.



> Nobody played well, this was pathetic from start to finish.
> 
> You act like he's the reason players catch the ball out of bounds, or miss wide open shots, or continuously charge on the rare fast-break, or don't know when the shot-clock is up, or aren't ready to catch the ball when they're wide open, etc. etc. etc...


I do? where?

show me where I act like he's the reason for all that.

go on, I'll wait.



> Am I to believe that everyone within a fifty foot radius of Zach becomes instantly retarded? If so, then your arguement might make sense.


if thats what you want to make my argument out to be, than I guess..umm...that makes sense.



> Oh and to single him out as a bad defender after all the layins others on the team game up all game long is amazing to me. You have so much tunnel vision on Zach's deficiencies that you don't even notice everyone elses.


check the title of this thread please.



> We sucked yesterday and we sucked today. It's a team effort.


no doubt. thats why I complained in the game thread about the poor play of the team.


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

The nice thing about having Zach is there's no question where the ball goes to in the final seconds if the team needs a bucket.
You could tell against Toronto that the team looked utterly lost out on the floor down the stretch and nearly let the Raptors back in it.

I just can't see the team looking to trade Zach the way things are going right now just to get rid of him unless the team is given an offer it can't refuse.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Yes,I think I'll give the game ball to Zach. After all he made a wide open lay in to win the game.


It sounds like you're knocking Zach for getting a wide open layup. 

If Joel, Mags, Aldridge, or LaFrentz get the ball in the same position, they don't get a wide open layup. Certainly nothing wrong with creating an easy shot for yourself.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

wait...so if joel, jamaal, raef or lamarcus get the ball, they dont get a wide open layup...but since the 76ers respect zach so much they got out of his way?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Samuel said:


> (by the way, you passed whimsy a few miles back and are now at mile marker 'obnoxious'.)



mission accomplished!


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> wait...so if joel, jamaal, raef or lamarcus get the ball, they dont get a wide open layup...but since the 76ers respect zach so much they got out of his way?


umm i think Tince was insinuating the reason zach gets that good look and joel, jamaal, raef, and aldridge doesn't, is because zach is superior at creating a good shot for himself.

that's easy enough to see.

sorry if i got it wrong, Tince.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

zach needed more minutes tonite, mcmillan was jerkin' him...didn't allow him to get any consistency going. honestly it amazes me how many continue to criticize zach every night despite doing what is needed to get a W. 

we didnt fall behind due to zach, we fell behind due to poor substituting on Nate's part, and an overall lack of game. Everyone on that court sucked tonight except Iguodala. Look at the turnovers...Then notice Zach didnt commit many compared to his teammates.

haters fall back, without zach this would have been a loss.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

ryanjend22 said:


> zach needed more minutes tonite, mcmillan was jerkin' him...didn't allow him to get any consistency going.


Randolph got pulled because he got his 4th foul pretty early in the second half, IIRC.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Hap said:


> wait...so if joel, jamaal, raef or lamarcus get the ball, they dont get a wide open layup...but since the 76ers respect zach so much they got out of his way?


It wasn't actually wide open. Zach took the ball face up at 20 feet out, put the ball on the floor and drove to his left right past his defender. There was even a help defender there to the left but he was slow to react and just barely swiped at the ball.

So if Joel, Jamaal, Raef or LMA had the ball at that moment, they probably wouldn't have gotten an "open" layup, because they wouldn't have been able to create one.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> It wasn't actually wide open. Zach took the ball face up at 20 feet out, put the ball on the floor and drove to his left right past his defender. There was even a help defender there to the left but he was slow to react and just barely swiped at the ball.
> 
> So if Joel, Jamaal, Raef or LMA had the ball at that moment, they probably wouldn't have gotten an "open" layup, because they wouldn't have been able to create one.


Exactly, thank you.

It was only an "open layup" because he had already beaten two defenders on a really great drive.

The defense got caught with their pants down, because they probably didn't realize he could/would make that kind of play.

You guys are ridiculous.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> It wasn't actually wide open. Zach took the ball face up at 20 feet out, put the ball on the floor and drove to his left right past his defender. There was even a help defender there to the left but he was slow to react and just barely swiped at the ball.
> 
> So if Joel, Jamaal, Raef or LMA had the ball at that moment, they probably wouldn't have gotten an "open" layup, because they wouldn't have been able to create one.



Well you're right, Aldridge who can actually jump would have dunked the ball. 

There is no way you can convince me that LaMarcus Aldridge, who is the second fastest player on our team in line sprints couldn't have done the exact same thing.


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> There is no way you can convince me that LaMarcus Aldridge, who is the second fastest player on our team in line sprints couldn't have done the exact same thing.


there are facets of the game that aldridge is better than zach right now, like shot blocking and running the floor. other aspects of his game where he looks like he can be as good as zach or better, like his post game, rebounding, and the midrange jumper.

for a big, zach is very good at creating a shot for himself. i'd be very happy if aldridge can be as good as zach in creating is own shot. but right now, as far as creating his own shot, he's far behind zach.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Well you're right, Aldridge who can actually jump would have dunked the ball.
> 
> There is no way you can convince me that LaMarcus Aldridge, who is the second fastest player on our team in line sprints couldn't have done the exact same thing.


It's ball handling skills, not just how fast you are. He doesn't have the skills, at least from what I've seen to do what Zach did for the game winner.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Well you're right, Aldridge who can actually jump would have dunked the ball.
> 
> There is no way you can convince me that LaMarcus Aldridge, who is the second fastest player on our team in line sprints couldn't have done the exact same thing.


Aldridge could probably make that play, but he also probably wouldn't have had the guts to go for it in that situation... not at this point in his career.

Either way it doesn't diminish the point that it wasn't an "open layup", it was a solid drive to the basket beating two defenders. Are you going to assert that Joel Raef or Magloire would have made that play?

What's silly about this is that Zach made a nice play and won the game, but certain posters are acting like it was no big deal.

What team are you guys rooting for again?


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

mgb said:


> It's ball handling skills, not just how fast you are. He doesn't have the skills, at least from what I've seen to do what Zach did for the game winner.





BuckW4GM said:


> there are facets of the game that aldridge is better than zach right now, like shot blocking and running the floor. other aspects of his game where he looks like he can be as good as zach or better, like his post game, rebounding, and the midrange jumper.
> 
> for a big, zach is very good at creating a shot for himself. i'd be very happy if aldridge can be as good as zach in creating is own shot. but right now, as far as creating his own shot, he's far behind zach.


Exactly. :clap:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Exactly, thank you.
> 
> It was only an "open layup" because he had already beaten two defenders on a really great drive.
> 
> ...


Completely. The Randolph haters in this thread make those who post on the ESPN board look like MENSA members.

Zach goes for 18/10 in 28 minutes, he puts the ball on the floor from 20' out and scores at the hoop to win the game, and people are bashing him for this effort. 

It is ridiculous. Great word and I'll continue to steal it from you.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

At least it's not quite like Oregonlive.com's board. I agree that it's getting close. There's a little bit more intelligence here though.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Well you're right, Aldridge who can actually jump would have dunked the ball.
> 
> *There is no way you can convince me that LaMarcus Aldridge, who is the second fastest player on our team in line sprints couldn't have done the exact same thing*.


 

Heck, I'm not sure I've seen LaMarcus ONE TIME this year put the ball on the floor on the perimeter, drive by two defenders, and finish at the hoop by himself. This isn't a knock on him, but if there is "no way to convince" you that Aldridge could not have done the exact same thing, I'll offer that you either are (A) not watching the games, or (B) confusing LaMarcus with someone else on the roster.

:cheers:


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

papag said:


> Heck, I'm not sure I've seen LaMarcus ONE TIME this year put the ball on the floor on the perimeter, drive by two defenders, and finish at the hoop by himself.


That play last night was total garbage defense on the Philly team. It was as bad as the Orlando game where Grant Hill waltzed down the lane for layup against us.

Glad we won the game, but we were handed a win by a team that's lost 8 straight. I think Darius Miles on crutches could have scored against the defense on that play.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> That play last night was total garbage defense on the Philly team. It was as bad as the Orlando game where Grant Hill waltzed down the lane for layup against us.
> 
> Glad we won the game, but we were handed a win by a team that's lost 8 straight. I think Darius Miles on crutches could have scored against the defense on that play.



My favorite quote was the one from the Philadelphia Enquirer. 

"Zach Randolph went unescorted to the basket for a layup"....Yeah, sounds like this reporter saw the same game I did.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

papag said:


> Zach goes for 18/10 in 28 minutes, he puts the ball on the floor from 20' out and scores at the hoop to win the game, and people are bashing him for this effort.


In 4th quarter crunch time Zbo turned the ball over twice and let Allan Henderson dunk on him. Props on taking the ball to the hoop, but it wasn't a spectacular clutch play by any means.

A 2-point win over Philly is almost a loss in my book. Is there any other team in the league we could have beaten playing like we did last night? Hell, the Bobcats would have handed us our a$$es playing the way we were.

A guy making an NBA max deal should at least make his defensive rotations. How long are Zbo defenders going to cover for his continual lapses (defensively and morally)? If you build around Zbo, I can't see this team getting more than a 1st round exit the playoffs at best. Great teams make defensive stands and get key stops. That's not going to happen with Zbo as the cornerstone of this team.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> In 4th quarter crunch time Zbo turned the ball over twice and let Allan Henderson dunk on him. Props on taking the ball to the hoop, but it wasn't a spectacular clutch play by any means.


If a 6'9" PF putting the ball on the floor from 20' out and driving past two defenders at the buzzer isn't clutch, then I'd like to know what clutch is to you.



> A 2-point win over Philly is almost a loss in my book. Is there any other team in the league we could have beaten playing like we did last night? Hell, the Bobcats would have handed us our a$$es playing the way we were.


The team came out with a win. What I find curious is how people like you are blasting the one guy who actually showed up to play. Why not blast Aldridge and his 3 turnovers in 13 minutes?



> A guy making an NBA max deal should at least make his defensive rotations. How long are Zbo defenders going to cover for his continual lapses (defensively and morally)?


I saw Zach matched up with Chris "2 for 9" Webber last night. Iguadola killed the Blazers last night, so blame Joel and Jamal for not protecting the basket. They are paid to block shots and protect the middle.

The moral shot is unnecessary as well. 



> If you build around Zbo, I can't see this team getting more than a 1st round exit the playoffs at best. Great teams make defensive stands and get key stops. That's not going to happen with Zbo as the cornerstone of this team.


Why is it necessary to build around ZBO? He doesn't need to be the primary focus in a few years. I'm hoping the Brandon Roy fills that role, and I'm also hoping that LaMarcus Aldridge fills out and plays an outside/in offensive game from the center.

What I don't understand is this. Who can the Blazers get that can offer the consistent low post scoring threat that Randolph provides in addition to excellent on the ball defense? Amare Stoudamire? No way to get him. Duncan is untouchable; Shaq is too old. Hell, if not for Zach being double-teamed pretty much every offensive set, guys like Webster and Dixon would never get a shot off. Also, on the rare plays that Zach isn't in the post, he is setting high screens for Jack to cut 'n pop the jumper or dish off. I understand the complaints of his defense, but it's like people here expect him to be the league MVP. It's ridiculous.

As a side note, I've been very critical of Randolph in the past. Former ESPN posters know this. So I'm not a "Randolph defender". I'm more of a commentator on the idiotic criticisms I see about Zach. He's coming to play every night, and other than Jack I'm not sure anyone else on the roster can claim this.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> My favorite quote was the one from the Philadelphia Enquirer.
> 
> "Zach Randolph went unescorted to the basket for a layup"....Yeah, sounds like this reporter saw the same game I did.


So are you saying Zach didn't have to drive by Alan Henderson to get to the hoop? Do you think that Philly left him unguarded on that play?

Sounds like you weren't watching the game at all.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

papag said:


> If a 6'9" PF putting the ball on the floor from 20' out and driving past two defenders at the buzzer isn't clutch, then I'd like to know what clutch is to you.


Clutch? Maybe. An amazing play? Nope. It's a shot that 90% of the dudes in the NBA could have made. Henderson goes for the steal, leaves a wide open lane to the hoop for Zbo. Help D was WAY too late and there was nobody beween him and the hoop (stop with the past 2 defenders crap). Easy score on possibly the league's worst team.



papag said:


> Hell, if not for Zach being double-teamed pretty much every offensive set, guys like Webster and Dixon would never get a shot off.


Huh? The game that Zbo sat out suspended, Webster had a season-high 22 points. He got open by *gasp* ball movement. They swung the ball around the perimeter and he nailed the open 3. When the ball goes through Zbo, that perimeter games usually dies or we have to jack up a quick shot since there's only a few seconds on the clock by the time Zbo passes out.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> Huh? The game that Zbo sat out suspended, Webster had a season-high 22 points. He got open by *gasp* ball movement. They swung the ball around the perimeter and he nailed the open 3. When the ball goes through Zbo, that perimeter games usually dies or we have to jack up a quick shot since there's only a few seconds on the clock by the time Zbo passes out.


This is one of the complaints I just don't get. Webster had a nice game, and I applaud him for that. He has also had games where he can't throw the ball in the ocean.

Webster needs to take responsibility for his own play. If there is any outside force to blame, it is Nate. He seems to be less patient with Webster than with some of our other players. 

Seriously, do you blame the other players when Juan _ixon clanks shots and plays matador on the perimeter? I doubt Webster himself is pointing fingers at his team-mates....but if he is, he needs to stop!


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Webster needs to take responsibility for his own play. If there is any outside force to blame, it is Nate. He seems to be less patient with Webster than with some of our other players.


Webster needs a longer leash from Nate. He gets yanked far too quickly compared to Juan Dixon. He also needs more touches in order to produce. Seems like Juan jacks it up w/o fear fo Nate sending him to the bench, while Webster needs to play an amazing game to stay on the floor. If given the choice between two streak shooters, I'll go with the 6'8" one that has upside.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> Webster needs a longer leash from Nate. He gets yanked far too quickly compared to Juan Dixon. He also needs more touches in order to produce. Seems like Juan jacks it up w/o fear fo Nate sending him to the bench, while Webster needs to play an amazing game to stay on the floor. If given the choice between two streak shooters, I'll go with the 6'8" one that has upside.


Do any of you guys even read the paper? Nate said specifically he wants Webster to take more shots regardless of whether they are bad or good. Webster also had a psychologist on the earlier road trip because he's obviously got some mental barrier he is trying to overcome. Stop trying to lay everything at Nate's door. Webster is a good talent, and I'm as big a fan as anyone of the kid. But he just flat out hasn't produced when he's in there. It's disappointing because there are games we could really use an outside presence.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Do any of you guys even read the paper? Nate said specifically he wants Webster to take more shots regardless of whether they are bad or good.


Yea I read that. It lasted about 2 games until Nate went back to his old ways. If you looks at minutes played for Martell, they are all over the place. 

Believe what you actually see on the court, not what you read.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> Yea I read that. It lasted about 2 games until Nate went back to his old ways. If you looks at minutes played for Martell, they are all over the place.
> 
> Believe what you actually see on the court, not what you read.


I do, but the problem is that some people make blanket assumptions:

"Martell is getting yanked? Damn that Nate, Martell only had 1 bad shot!"

Yet no one knows what the reason is for Martell sitting. No one except Nate and Martell. 

I'd love it if someone could just ask Nate and settle this once and for all..


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Really, let's get rid of this slug ASAP.

:thumbdown: :clown: 

This team wins five games tops right now without Zach.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

papag said:


> Really, let's get rid of this slug ASAP.
> 
> :thumbdown: :clown:
> 
> This team wins five games tops right now without Zach.



Since we are 1-0 without him this season it's kind of weird for you to say we would be lucky to win 5 games. 


That being said Zach probably played his best game EVER last night offensively. Same bad defense though.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> That being said Zach probably played his best game EVER last night offensively. Same bad defense though.


Zbo finally was looking to pass and didn't hold onto the ball too long in the post. I'd love to see this kind of effort in more than one game. Very encouraging though.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> *Since we are 1-0 without him this season it's kind of weird for you to say we would be lucky to win 5 games. *


Yeah. Clearly the team would be 25-0 w/out him.

:lol: :clown: 

[QUITE}That being said Zach probably played his best game EVER last night offensively. Same bad defense though.[/QUOTE]

Zach played solid defense in the second half and actually got some praise from Nate for his effort on D.

Here is what is amazing to me. I'm actually turning into somewhat of a Zach defender solely based on the ridiculous criticisms I read on this board. Funny how that works sometimes.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

papag said:


> Here is what is amazing to me. I'm actually turning into somewhat of a Zach defender solely based on the ridiculous criticisms I read on this board. Funny how that works sometimes.


I'll turn into a supporter when Zbo turns in consecutive games like he did last night. 4-6 assists would be huge to get out of him on a regular basis.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> I'll turn into a supporter when Zbo turns in consecutive games like he did last night. 4-6 assists would be huge to get out of him on a regular basis.


He would have that more often if players were hitting there shots like they were last night.

Assists are a productive of players hitting shots when they get the ball.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> He would have that more often if players were hitting there shots like they were last night.
> 
> Assists are a productive of players hitting shots when they get the ball.



Quite right.

There is another point to ponder. According to NBA.com, there are currently 48 players who average at least 4 assists per game. Of that group, THREE spend any time in the low-post: Walton, Iguodala, and Odom. The rest are PGs or wing players.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Asking Zach to get 4-6 assist a night is insane. If he got 25/11/5 he would be a standout NBA player of the year. I think 2.5 is a realistic goal. No big man other than KG gets that many assist(Diaw doesnt count, because he is not nearly the scorer).


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

After tonite, there is no doubt that the Blazers should trade Randolph for Deng and some garbage draft pick.

:lol:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ok really guys? this is kinda getting old. It was neat a few weeks ago, but now people have moved on. Please join them.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Hap said:


> ok really guys? this is kinda getting old. It was neat a few weeks ago, but now people have moved on. Please join them.


A few days ago is moving on?

I envision this thread lasting a few years if the cards lay out right.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

papag said:


> After tonite, there is no doubt that the Blazers should trade Randolph for Deng and some garbage draft pick.
> 
> :lol:




I couldn't agree more. Randolph forced nearly every shot (8-20), had 3 TO's, and played his usual stellar defense. 

All Deng did in his last game was shoot better, have more rebounds, more assists, more steals, more blocked shots, and less TO's.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I couldn't agree more. Randolph forced nearly every shot (8-20), had 3 TO's, and played his usual stellar defense.
> 
> All Deng did in his last game was shoot better, have more rebounds, more assists, more steals, more blocked shots, and less TO's.


Yet we've won and he's been our leading scorer.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yet we've won and he's been our leading scorer.




I had a post in another thread about Zach that read pretty much this......

Zach is the best player on Portland's team. If we traded him this year we would not win as much this year if we didn't trade him. Moving forward however this team would be better off without Zach because of his off the court issues, and his total lack of defensive effort. 

When I say trade Zach I am thinking of the future, not the present.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Moving forward however this team would be better off without Zach because of his off the court issues, and his total lack of defensive effort.


Zach is still is a joke on defense. He didn't help his teammates at all last night and he seems uninterested in rotating. Joel and TO stepped up huge to help out thankfully.

I'd like to see Zbo traded for a player that scores a bit less, but brings focus on D. For every basket he scores, he gives up one on the other end.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> Zach is still is a joke on defense. He didn't help his teammates at all last night and he seems uninterested in rotating. Joel and TO stepped up huge to help out thankfully.
> 
> I'd like to see Zbo traded for a player that scores a bit less, but brings focus on D. For every basket he scores, he gives up one on the other end.


The Rockets were held to 8 points under their average, and Yao and the backcourt schooled their defenders, yet it is Randolph's fault because he didn't "rotate"?

:lol:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> Zach is still is a joke on defense. He didn't help his teammates at all last night and he seems uninterested in rotating. Joel and TO stepped up huge to help out thankfully.
> 
> I'd like to see Zbo traded for a player that scores a bit less, but brings focus on D. For every basket he scores, he gives up one on the other end.



You'll find it hard to convince people of that. I think it's because of the fantasy sports driven mentality of people. They see he scores a lot and rebounds well and think he's great. I too would rather see a more complete player in here instead of Zach.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> You'll find it hard to convince people of that. I think it's because of the fantasy sports driven mentality of people. They see he scores a lot and rebounds well and think he's great. I too would rather see a more complete player in here instead of Zach.


Me too. You think Tim Duncan is available?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

papag said:


> Me too. You think Tim Duncan is available?



No, but what does that have to do with getting a more complete player. Don't tell us all you think Tim Duncan is the only player in the league that has a more complete game than Zach. 

About your comment about zach rotating....He doesn't. Again it's the fantasy sports driven mentality. You see his guy didn't score much, but what you fail to see...or admit is that a big reson Yao scored so much is because of zach's poor rotation. This happens every game. Thankfully Joel and Travis had a combined 8 blocks to help make up for it last night. That's 16 points they likely saved us.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

papag said:


> The Rockets were held to 8 points under their average, and Yao and the backcourt schooled their defenders, yet it is Randolph's fault because he didn't "rotate"?


Maglore was "schooled," Joel played some great D against Yao.

The play last night that typified Zbo was Alston got by Jack at the 3-point line and waltzed to the hoop. Zbo stood there watching Alston just come to the hoop and drop the easiest layup you've ever seen. No effort to disrupt the shot, he just stood there with this feet glued to the floor. Add to that Howard dropping jumpers (3-for-4) all over Zbo in the 2nd half. I wouldn't credit Zbo with any of the defensive stops last night.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Scoreboard!


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Scoreboard!


Thanks for elevating the level of discourse on this thread.

Zbo right now is really reminding me of the years that Antoine Jamison had in 2000-2001 and Antoine Walker in 2000-2001. Both good scorers, bad defenders and neither were traded at their peak of their value. Let's not make the same mistake with Zbo.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> You'll find it hard to convince people of that. I think it's because of the fantasy sports driven mentality of people. They see he scores a lot and rebounds well and think he's great. I too would rather see a more complete player in here instead of Zach.



You blame fantasy sports?

I blame the Chuck Daly Pistons and the Pat Riley Knicks. They brain-washed people into believing in winning ugly and defense uber alles.

Tell you what - you can have 5 guys like Rodman and Bruce Bowen. I'll take 5 guys like Sir Charles and 'Nique Wilkens. Want to bet who wins? :wink:


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Tell you what - you can have 5 guys like Rodman and Bruce Bowen. I'll take 5 guys like Sir Charles and 'Nique Wilkens. Want to bet who wins?


Who's got the rings in the list of players you just mentioned?

All ugly defense is not the some as ANY defense. We get nothing from Zbo. He would need to shoot 75% from the field to make up on the offensive end what he detracts on the defensive end. Plain and simple.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

craigehlo said:


> Who's got the rings in the list of players you just mentioned?
> 
> All ugly defense is not the some as ANY defense. We get nothing from Zbo. He would need to shoot 75% from the field to make up on the offensive end what he detracts on the defensive end. Plain and simple.


Very flawed statement. So you think Rodman and Bowen can lead a team. Those two are role players at best


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

HB said:


> Very flawed statement. So you think Rodman and Bowen can lead a team. Those two are role players at best


That was more a joke dude. That was a poor choice of players on his part in the argument.

Bowen won with Duncan. Rodman won with both Zeke and MJ. Both guys played on teams with superstars that could both score and play defense. Amazing how the great players can seem to do both.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> You blame fantasy sports?
> 
> I blame the Chuck Daly Pistons and the Pat Riley Knicks. They brain-washed people into believing in winning ugly and defense uber alles.
> 
> Tell you what - you can have 5 guys like Rodman and Bruce Bowen. I'll take 5 guys like Sir Charles and 'Nique Wilkens. Want to bet who wins? :wink:




ALL the players you mentioned make their teammates better. Zach simply doesn't. Barkley and Wilkins both tried to play defense at least, and were quick enough to do so. 

I also think you should know that by most of my posts I am all for scoring. 

Barkely average defender....Oh and HOFer
Wilkins average defender....Oh and HOFer
Zach below average defender... Oh hasn't even made an all-star team yet because he's not a complete player


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Zach below average defender... Oh hasn't even made an all-star team yet because he's not a complete player



So when he makes the all star team this year that means he is a complete player, right?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So when he makes the all star team this year that means he is a complete player, right?


I think it'll suggest that he's getting closer to becoming one. Fans vote for who's flashy and who they're told is "the best". Coaches vote for those who they think is playing great and deserving of a spot. Sometimes that comes down to things such as the teams record, their reputation. Sometimes it's something as petty as how much their team got their asses handed to them by said player.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So when he makes the all star team this year that means he is a complete player, right?



I think it will mean he's closer. 

Both Nate and Cheeks have said that for Zach to get to the all-star game he was going to have to play more of a complete game.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> So when he makes the all star team this year that means he is a complete player, right?


Missing the point.

He's a 2 stat player on a sub .500 team. I would put KG, Dirk, Amare, Brand, Duncan, Melo, Marion, Odom and Boozer ahead of him right now. He's better than an injured Gasol, Battier and Josh Howard who are also ahead of him in voting inexplicably.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> ALL the players you mentioned make their teammates better. Zach simply doesn't. Barkley and Wilkins both tried to play defense at least, and were quick enough to do so.
> 
> I also think you should know that by most of my posts I am all for scoring.
> 
> ...


Barkley was one of the worst defenders in the league. He didn't even try.

I can't speak for Wilkins, but I don't remember him being someone who tried on defense either...

And I say that Zach is an average defender.

Prove me wrong...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> Thanks for elevating the level of discourse on this thread.


Couldn't resist, and I've worn out "Stop Whining"

Or maybe not...

Stop Whining.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I think it will mean he's closer.
> 
> Both Nate and Cheeks have said that for Zach to get to the all-star game he was going to have to play more of a complete game.



I didn't catch Nate's comments about last night's game, but he has complemented Zach on becoming a more complete player this year . . . including his defense. He has questioned whether Zach can perform consistently, but has acknowledged Zach's all around game.

If Zach makes the all star team, I don't think that means he is a complete player . . . I just don't think that is the reason he hasn't made the all star team yet.

The PF position is deep in the West, and with the Blazer's record the past few years, I don't Zach has even come close to being considered.

Anyways, I should probably read through the thread to see where everyone's opinion of Zach lies, I just saw that last statement about why zach hasn't masde the all star team and decided to comment . . . more trying to pin you to saying that Zach is a complete player if he makes the all star team . . . but I couldn't pin you to it. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Barkley was one of the worst defenders in the league. He didn't even try.


Early in his career, Barkley started out blocking shots, and stealing the ball. He, iirc, never did make "all defensive" anything. 

Buck Williams, btw, made it on 1st or 2nd "all defensive" 4 times. Just thought I'd share. And the 1978 "All defensive 1st team" had 3 "starters" that were Trail Blazers. Lucas, Walton and Hollins. Not bad, eh?


> I can't speak for Wilkins, but I don't remember him being someone who tried on defense either...


Dom didn't know defense..which is (imho) why he didn't make the "top 50 players of all time" list.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

craigehlo said:


> Missing the point.
> 
> He's a 2 stat player on a sub .500 team. I would put KG, Dirk, Amare, Brand, Duncan, Melo, Marion, Odom and Boozer ahead of him right now. He's better than an injured Gasol, Battier and Josh Howard who are also ahead of him in voting inexplicably.



I'm not sure what point I missed, jsut trying to pin MM down on his statement (having fun . . . giddy over the win)

As far as Zach being a two stat player on a sub .500 team . . . that is one way to view him. How about the only player in the league who averages over 25 points a game and double digit rebounds . . . I think that is what I heard the other day . . . those are two huge stats. Also, he is the team captain and leader on a team that is exceeding all expectations.

Besides what more do you want, that he be a three stat player?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Barkley was one of the worst defenders in the league. He didn't even try.
> 
> I can't speak for Wilkins, but I don't remember him being someone who tried on defense either...
> 
> ...




Although it's impossible to do, Joel and Travis having 8 blocks last night is part of it. Joel complaining that Zach needs to rotate more on defense is part of it. Sports pages, columnists, and fans saying Zach is a great offensive player but doesn't play any defense is another, and lastly, talking with my insider friend here in Houston who says the perception of Zach around the league is strictly a selfish player who will never get it is another.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> And I say that Zach is an average defender.
> 
> Prove me wrong...


Well watch a game first off. Watch him not help out teammates and give a half-hearted effort on his own man.

Among starting forwards, he's 72nd out of 108 in steals. He's 89th out of 103 in blocks among starting forwards as well. That's below average in those categories.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Zach is a one-dimensional player, but one-dimensional players can be very useful in this league, especially ones who are dominant offensive players.

Look at recent Finals teams. Wade and Shaq are bad defenders. Dirk is a bad defender. Ben Wallace has no offense. Rip Hamilton is a bad defender. Bruce Bowen can hit a 3 but otherwise does little on offense than stand around. Rasho and Nazr were basically just guys who guard the pivot and rebound.

Rather than be built of all guys who are all well-rounded, real-life NBA teams are built with guys who have various strengths and weaknesses, and the good teams are the ones who are both talented and who have players who compliment each other.

A good team should have at least one guy who dominates on offense. Right now Zach is that guy, and we don't have another. He's one-dimensional, but we need that dimension, and unless we have someone else who can fill that role his scoring output makes it worth covering up for him on defense.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Zach is a one-dimensional player, but one-dimensional players can be very useful in this league, especially ones who are dominant offensive players.
> 
> Look at recent Finals teams. Wade and Shaq are bad defenders. Dirk is a bad defender. Ben Wallace has no offense. Rip Hamilton is a bad defender. Bruce Bowen can hit a 3 but otherwise does little on offense than stand around. Rasho and Nazr were basically just guys who guard the pivot and rebound.
> 
> ...




Um last year Wade recieved 8 total votes and 3 for the first team. He was honorable mention for all defensive team. 

Shaq recieved 3 total votes and 1 first team vote...while further down on the list, still honorable mention


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Zach is a one-dimensional player, but one-dimensional players can be very useful in this league, especially ones who are dominant offensive players.
> 
> Look at recent Finals teams. Wade and Shaq are bad defenders. Dirk is a bad defender. Ben Wallace has no offense. Rip Hamilton is a bad defender. Bruce Bowen can hit a 3 but otherwise does little on offense than stand around. Rasho and Nazr were basically just guys who guard the pivot and rebound.
> 
> ...



I agree. Like it or not, Nate's gameplan is based on the talent available.....not some theory about which type of gameplan is "best".

Now, if we could just convince him that talent and hard work are more important than seniority! :wink:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Um last year Wade recieved 8 total votes and 3 for the first team. He was honorable mention for all defensive team.
> 
> Shaq recieved 3 total votes and 1 first team vote...while further down on the list, still honorable mention


Um, you avoided the thesis of my post to focus on a detail. Do you disagree that teams can succeed with any one-dimensional players?

In any case, whoever made those votes for Shaq/Wade is just plain wrong. Wade isn't horrible, but he's not good on defense, as he himself said in an interview at the end of the season. Part of it is having to use energy to be the focus of the offense, part of it is just that he's just young. Think about it, how many times last season did we see him shut down opposing star SGs? I can't remember any, but OTOH I do remember him getting in some absolute shootouts with guys like Kobe and Arenas. He doesn't try to stop guys, he tries to outscore them.

Shaq is horrible though. He's still an ok post defender, because of his size and strength, but he has never been good about making rotations or moving away from the hoop at all, and now that he's older and slower he's even worse. Watch him try to defend a pick and roll, and you'll agree that he belongs nowhere near the all-defense team.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> I think it will mean he's closer.
> 
> Both Nate and Cheeks have said that for Zach to get to the all-star game he was going to have to play more of a complete game.


I find it ironic for that as much as you hate on Nate, you use him as a reference to back up your claim.


----------

