# Chris Paul, Oh, my!



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Chris Paul had a brilliant game today after coming back from injury: 24 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 steals. He shot 50% from the field and was a perfect 12 of 12 from the free throw line. Thanks to Paul, New Orleans has already matched its win total (18) from all of last season.

I feel like crying every time I think we could have had this guy.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=260116030


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Enough with the Chris Paul threads. We get it.

Maybe we should just sticky a thread and people can post there every time he has a good game.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Enough with the Chris Paul threads. We get it.
> 
> 
> > Do posters get it? During a recent Nash "grading post," most posters gave him high grades for his drafting ability.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Chris Paul had a brilliant game today *after coming back from injury*: 24 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 steals. He shot 50% from the field and was a perfect 12 of 12 from the free throw line. Thanks to Paul, New Orleans has already matched its win total (18) from all of last season.
> 
> I feel like crying every time I think we could have had this guy.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=260116030


 He's not back from injury.He still is injured.Look at his right thumb(torn ligaments).Was supposed to miss 2 weeks,instead he sat out the game they lost at Atlanta and talked the coach into letting him play through it.It has hurt his shooting,but not his floor game.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Wow and he did it against that steaming juggernaut of a team, the Charlotte Bobcats and their defensive stopper Brevin Knight. His defense is so awesome, he is often compared to Damon Stoudamire as defensive greats. :clown: 

Chris Paul plays on a bad team that he is expected to be one of two players carrying the scoring load. Very reminiscent of Damon Stoudamires stint in Toronto, in fact, their numbers throughout their rookie seasons are almost identical. Give him a few years before you really decide how good he is.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I think the right take on this issue is this:

1. Nash screwed up royally. Chris Paul was the best player available, and is already better than Martell will ever be.

BUT:

2. The ceiling for Chris Paul is probably KJ/Tim Hardaway territory. I don't really like teams that have small scoring point guards as their best or second-best players.** Paul would have to be Isiah-good to lead a team to a title, and nobody's nasty enough to be Isiah-good any more.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

3. Of course, Telfair is, at best, a poor man's Chris Paul, and if Pritchard was acting for Nash last season, that's the role Nash had in mind for Telfair.

Hope that clears things up. Go Steve Blake! Go Jarrett Jack!

(**This would seem to include San Antonio this year. But of course, they're not as good as when Ginobili was their second-best player.)


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

hasoos said:


> Wow and he did it against that steaming juggernaut of a team, the Charlotte Bobcats and their defensive stopper Brevin Knight. His defense is so awesome, he is often compared to Damon Stoudamire as defensive greats. :clown:
> 
> Chris Paul *plays on a bad team that he is expected* to be one of two players carrying the scoring load. Very reminiscent of Damon Stoudamires stint in Toronto, in fact, their numbers throughout their rookie seasons are almost identical. Give him a few years before you really decide how good he is.


Hornets are 18-19 including the game they lost to Atlanta w/o him.If they had won that game they would be tied with Utah for the last playoff spot in the West while playing in the Southwest against SA,Dallas and Memphis.If they played in the Northwest Division they would get to play a far weaker schedeule than Utah or Minnesota that is in a virtual tie with Utah but now has the NW lead by percentages.

Among all NBA guards Chris Paul is ninth in efficiency.Ahead of him Wade, Kobe,AI,Nash,Arenas,VInce Carter,Billups and Kidd.You've heard of those guys...How many of them would be 18-19 on the Hornets instead of Paul?
Vince Carter would be pretending to suck twenty games ago.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Jordan Won 6 Rings!!!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

the race for the "best player" is not always finished after 40 games.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

hasoos said:


> Wow and he did it against that steaming juggernaut of a team, the Charlotte Bobcats and their defensive stopper Brevin Knight. His defense is so awesome, he is often compared to Damon Stoudamire as defensive greats. :clown:
> 
> Chris Paul plays on a bad team that he is expected to be one of two players carrying the scoring load. Very reminiscent of Damon Stoudamires stint in Toronto, in fact, their numbers throughout their rookie seasons are almost identical. Give him a few years before you really decide how good he is.


Paul has been doing this against other starting PG's all around the league, not just Brevin Knight....and his team is actually good not the worst team in the league, like Damon's team was when he was a rookie....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Yeah and Damon sure progressed after his rookie year....

Big deal, he had a good game...WOW....Who knew he would be a good player? I mean can we see another post about Paul...pretty please?

This has been answered so many many times...We can't judge POR decision not to take Paul until we see how Telfair\Webster\Jack develop..and that may be a few years...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Seriously though...

Chris Paul is not a Blazer. No ammount of complaining crying finger pointing...etc...etc....Is going to suddenly make him a Blazer.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Do posters get it? During a recent Nash "grading post," most posters gave him high grades for his drafting ability.


If the qualification for a high grade at drafting ability is 'must not miss any stars-to-be', then no NBA GM current or past would receive a high grade. 

barfo


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

meru said:


> The ceiling for Chris Paul is probably KJ/Tim Hardaway territory. I don't really like teams that have small scoring point guards as their best or second-best players.** Paul would have to be Isiah-good to lead a team to a title, and nobody's nasty enough to be Isiah-good any more.


At the pre-draft he measured 5'11.75 barefoot, 178 lbs, and had a 6'4.25 wingspan... he also showed off a 39" jumpreach. I think the big wingspan and explosiveness makes up for whatever shere size he lacks. Even though some of the larger PG's of the league gave him some problems, Stockton managed to have a pretty decent career at that size.

Anyways, those were some pretty good players to be compared to. I think he spreads the court at least as well with those you mentioned, as his off the ball/catch and shoot game is excellent. If he gets some better teammates down the line, I bet we'll see more of that from him.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah and Damon sure progressed after his rookie year....
> 
> Big deal, he had a good game...WOW....Who knew he would be a good player?


I sure did. I said it here quite a few times.

rookie Stoudamire? whuh? 

Damon is about 5'9 barefoot, and the Raptors went 21-61... how does The Rat relate to Paul?

STOMP


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I feel like crying every time I think we could have had this guy.


Then keep crying.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

barfo said:


> If the qualification for a high grade at drafting ability is 'must not miss any stars-to-be', then no NBA GM current or past would receive a high grade.
> 
> barfo



Well that is a tough qualification and I'm assuming (based on a bell shaped curve) that there are some good GMs. So how about just the fact you trade down because everyone knew that Paul should be the third pick, but you are the only GM who doesn't think he is worth the third pick so you trade down. It's not a situation of missing an all star lurking in the draft as much as not taking the obvious choice. Does that deserve a lowering of the grade?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Well that is a tough qualification and I'm assuming (based on a bell shaped curve) that there are some good GMs. So how about just the fact you trade down because everyone knew that Paul should be the third pick, *but you are the only GM who doesn't think he is worth the third pick* so you trade down (only to find out later why everyone else understood he was deserving of the third pick) Does that deserve a lowering of the grade?


utah didn't pick paul, and they had the 3rd pick. So I guess he wasn't the only GM who thought that.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> utah didn't pick paul, and they had the 3rd pick. So I guess he wasn't the only GM who thought that.



Well that's true. But Paul was rated third best by most and Utah has been known to draft unconventional players. I don't know, maybe Nash did know what he was doing by trading down to avoid Paul and picking up Webster.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Well that's true. But Paul was rated third best by most and Utah has been known to draft unconventional players. I don't know, maybe Nash did know what he was doing by trading down to avoid Paul and picking up Webster.


thats why it's a tad early to be kvetching about the blazers "passing on Paul". What happens if Webster turns out to be a missing piece to our puzzle?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> thats why it's a tad early to be kvetching about the blazers "passing on Paul". What happens if Webster turns out to be a missing piece to our puzzle?


OK, but you must admit that if Webster was having half the year Paul was having, posters would be all over the board gushing over Nash's drafting abilities and predicting that Webster is a future all star. I was even reading that during summer league. 

Webster may be the missing piece, but a first year mid-season review indicates Nash blew it. Yes, I know all it is is a "first year, mid season reveiw," so I understand if some may give it no relevance. But I"m sure everyone wishes it was the other way around and that Webster was the one in the running for ROY and Paul was the early season bust.

I been somewhat consistent with my theme that Nash may prove many of us skeptics worng, but hopefully you can understand some of the doubts and concerns given what has occured over the last two and half years.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> OK, but you must admit that if Webster was having half the year Paul was having, posters would be all over the board gushing over Nash's drafting abilities and predicting that Webster is a future all star. I was even reading that during summer league.


you read that from a select few posters, who overreact at the drop of that hat. You know that, and I know that. That fact doesn't invalidate the opinion that we should wait a little longer with martell than 35+ games.



> Webster may be the missing piece, but a first year mid-season review indicates Nash blew it. Yes, I know all it is is a "first year, mid season reveiw," so I understand if some may give it no relevance. But I"m sure everyone wishes it was the other way around and that Webster was the one in the running for ROY and Paul was the early season bust.


I would bet that most fans would (hopefully) realize that picks take time to mature. But again, because that might be the case if it was the other way around, doesn't change what I said. 


> I been somewhat consistent with my theme that Nash may prove many of us skeptics worng, but hopefully you can understand some of the doubts and concerns given what has occured over the last two and half years.


I also understand that people have no patience anymore, because they think teams can be fixed over night, or that other players performing steller stats would perform those same stats on the blazers.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

thats it i cant take it anymore i am leaving the blazers cus chris paul is a god and we could have had him in our bed to roll around and honor him the great player he is, oh he is so hot when he all sweaty!!!!!! 

oh yeah I think some fans need to get up off thier knees wipe themselves off and support our team! nah that would take too much energy compared to crying over spilt milk.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Yeah and Damon sure progressed after his rookie year....
> 
> Big deal, he had a good game...WOW....Who knew he would be a good player? I mean can we see another post about Paul...pretty please?
> 
> This has been answered so many many times...We can't judge POR decision not to take Paul until we see how Telfair\Webster\Jack develop..and that may be a few years...


This is so true. Ten years ago, would you have ripped Kevin McHale for taking a HS kid instead of drafting a PG out of college who was putting up big stats and would go on to win ROY?

Draft picks cannot be evaulated completely only 35 games into their pro career.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

On this evaluation idea, why is it wrong to evaluate now? It may not be the most accurate evaluation, but players get evaluated even in high school. (When Lebron came out, there was all kinds of evaluations done after each game discussing weather he is the real deal or all hype.) Some players take longer to blossom, some never blossom, and some start kicking *** as soon as they hit the NBA. Most fans know that, so why not analyze how they have progressed thus far.

This is a chat board about the Blazers. Why is it so wrong to give gut feelings about players after 35 games. On the flip side, many are declaring Blake a success. Should the retort be that it is only 35 games so we can't evaluate whether Blake was a good signing until years later?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> On the flip side, many are declaring Blake a success. Should the retort be that it is only 35 games so we can't evaluate whether Blake was a good signing until years later?


In a way, you're right. If Blake can't sustain his current level of play, or if he gets injured, then he might not look like such a good pickup down the road. However, the difference between Blake and Webster is simple at this point. Blake has proven he has the right stuff at point guard; Webster has NOT proven he has the right stuff at shooting guard. 

Granted, it took Blake a few years in the NBA to get to this point, but he DID get there. We don't know if Webster will ever get there (but I'm betting that he does).


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It is as simple as this: Basketball fans for the most part, are a "What have you done for me lately." group of people. When players have good games they are on top of the world, when they don't, they are ready to run them out of town. Guys like Chris Paul, while it is nice that they are playing well now, have not proven anything. Damon Stoudemire was like that too. Angry out of the draft, wanting to prove his stuff, he played well his first year, making a lot of people doubt themselves. 4 years later I doubt they were. I remember Harvey Grant being "Washingtons leading scorer." He came here and stunk it up. THe only reason he was their leading scorer was the only guys who could put it in the bucket were him and Rod Strickland, so he shot his way into a good scoring average. Then theres the guys like Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp, who took years to develope and gel. 3 years later they were challenging for the western conference championship. Then there was Billy Owens. He seemed good when he was at Golden State after they had traded Mitch Richmond for him. As soon as all the good players around him slowly left the team, it was obvious he was only as good as the other players could take him. So I guess what I am saying is, some players you know earlier then others, but some are not quite what they appear. Sometimes being patient and waiting for a Shawn Kemp or Gary Payton to develope is worth the wait as opposed to getting a player who might plateu his first year.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> It is as simple as this: Basketball fans for the most part, are a "What have you done for me lately." group of people. When players have good games they are on top of the world, when they don't, they are ready to run them out of town. Guys like Chris Paul, while it is nice that they are playing well now, have not proven anything. Damon Stoudemire was like that too. Angry out of the draft, wanting to prove his stuff, he played well his first year, making a lot of people doubt themselves. 4 years later I doubt they were. I remember Harvey Grant being "Washingtons leading scorer." He came here and stunk it up. THe only reason he was their leading scorer was the only guys who could put it in the bucket were him and Rod Strickland, so he shot his way into a good scoring average. Then theres the guys like Gary Payton and Shawn Kemp, who took years to develope and gel. 3 years later they were challenging for the western conference championship. Then there was Billy Owens. He seemed good when he was at Golden State after they had traded Mitch Richmond for him. As soon as all the good players around him slowly left the team, it was obvious he was only as good as the other players could take him. So I guess what I am saying is, some players you know earlier then others, but some are not quite what they appear. Sometimes being patient and waiting for a Shawn Kemp or Gary Payton to develope is worth the wait as opposed to getting a player who might plateu his first year.


I get all that. The only part I really disagree with is that I think Chris Paul has proven something, that he can play and contribute at the NBA level for half a season. It is Webster who I think has not proven anything yet. From your post, I get the sense you don't put a lot of stock in the first half of an NBA season and you've shown examples why. Valid examples. You know, there are also examples of players who came into the league with an immediate impact and were perinial all star later in their career. 

Answer this honsetly, would you have that same attitude if Webster was putting up the same numbers as Paul (ie that Webster has proven nothing)? Has Blake proven anything?

At this point the Blazers have no choice but to be patient with Webster and hope he develops. I'm not advocating trading Webster, but I am disapponted that Webster hasn't come in and made even a little impact on the team. I didn't start the Paul thread, but I do think about the fact the Blazers choose Webster instead of Paul. My biggest gripe is that posters continue to think Nash is this great evaluator of talent, why?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

paul is how old? now many more years of basketball does he have compared to webster?

if paul is such a stud why does his team have the record they have? cant he make them any better? yeah sure he gets his stats but the W's arent THAT impressive to be drooling like he is lebron or kobe.

some people need to get a grip the milk has been slipped for a while now and its starting to turn to stinky cheese get over it, why not support and hope webster becomes good as advertized? 

I think some people are just moaning to be moaning no matter who we would have picked.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes, while I am skeptical of Chris Paul, I can assure you I am skeptical of many of the young Blazers as well. I think that Blake has been a steadying force on the Blazers, but I do not think he is a "good" player. He reminds me of Danny Young, the backup PG who would come in for the Blazers, have a quiet game and not make many mistakes. Good? No. Good for the Blazers in these dire times? Yes. 

As for the rest of the youngsters on the team, my skepticism goes further. Out of Travis Outlaw, Viktor Kryapa, Sebastien Telfair, Sergi Monia and Martell Webster, right now I would be happy if one of them would just turn into a contributing NBA player that is consistent from night to night. The only reasons I have a little more optimism with Sebastien is that he has had some "Flash" games where he busted out some good stats and made some plays. Martell is young so I am much more optimistic about him then some of the guys like Outlaw who have actually been in the league for 3+ years and still haven't came up for air. Outlaws best game is an above average game for most forwards at this point. 

I am less skeptical of Jack, I think he is showing signs of at least becoming a consistent NBA player, maybe more. His minutes have been steady, and he contributes on a lot of nights.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> paul is how old? now many more years of basketball does he have compared to webster?
> 
> if paul is such a stud why does his team have the record they have? cant he make them any better? yeah sure he gets his stats but the W's arent THAT impressive to be drooling like he is lebron or kobe.
> 
> ...



Do you really think posters would be moaning if Webster was named Western Conference Rookie of the Month for both November and December, leads all rookies in points (16.3) and assists (7.4). and ranked second in the NBA with 2.22 steals per game.

FYI-Hornets have already matched last years win total.

Don't know if your addressing your post to me but I do support Webster and hope he becomes as good as advertised.


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> paul is how old? now many more years of basketball does he have compared to webster?
> 
> if paul is such a stud why does his team have the record they have? cant he make them any better? yeah sure he gets his stats but the W's arent THAT impressive to be drooling like he is lebron or kobe.
> 
> ...


Paul is 20 and will be 21 in May. Last season the Hornets were 5-32 at this time. Today they're 18-19 (maybe 19-19 if they beat the Grizzlies tonight). I would say he has indeed made them somewhat better. Webster may be good. He just may need a bit more time. Not all players out of high school have great first seasons.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Do you really think posters would be moaning if Webster was named Western Conference Rookie of the Month for both November and December, leads all rookies in points (16.3) and assists (7.4). and ranked second in the NBA with 2.22 steals per game.
> 
> FYI-Hornets have already matched last years win total.
> 
> Don't know if your addressing your post to me but I do support Webster and hope he becomes as good as advertised.


I believe what uther is suggesting is that some fans will complain regardless of who they picked, just because they like to complain about their picks. The fact that Paul is having a really good season, is just par for the course. But if Webster would be havin as good a season as hoped (or your scenario) isn't really a valid counter claim, because it's doubtful that Paul would be having that kind of game on the Blazers.

Espcially since all we hear about from fans (for why telfair isn't the future here, and Blake andJack are) is that Nate McMillan doesn't like the kinds of PG that Paul seems to be (he's shooting more). 

It's unknown if Paul would be putting up significantly better #'s in Portland, just as it's unknown if Webster would be getting good minutes on a team that just wanted to put him out there and see what he can do. it does make a difference when a team just throws their rookies out there, and they produce. 

I have no doubt that if Webster was given 30 mintues a night, and actually had plays ran for him often, he'd put up more ppg, and continue to improve every night. 

If you were to put Paul (or any other rookie) on this team and limit their shots, and minutes, they'll struggle.

I bet you if Jack was on another team and was getting major minutes (and played to his strengths) he'd be putting up much better #'s. It's hard to put up big numbers when your minutes are limited (15-18) and you're not playing big chunks of minutes.

If Blake went down with an injury, and they decided to play Jack, he'd probably put up as impressive #'s as blake (actually, imho, better) and probably would show that he's a lot better than his play and stats indicate.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> I believe what uther is suggesting is that some fans will complain regardless of who they picked, just because they like to complain about their picks. The fact that Paul is having a really good season, is just par for the course. But if Webster would be havin as good a season as hoped (or your scenario) isn't really a valid counter claim, because it's doubtful that Paul would be having that kind of game on the Blazers.
> 
> Espcially since all we hear about from fans (for why telfair isn't the future here, and Blake andJack are) is that Nate McMillan doesn't like the kinds of PG that Paul seems to be (he's shooting more).
> 
> ...


That all makes sense and if this was a playoff contending team I would buy into this whole heartedly (ie JO never had a chance to blossom). But this Blazer team is all about allowing players to step up and Nate has given everyone a chance to play, including Webster. Webster has had his chances and by anyone's account he has been disappointing thus far. Sending a sixth overall pick to the D league says it all . . . Webster is being given every chance to develop his game. I know we see things differnently, but I can't belive you don't think Webster has been given his shot.

Also, not suprisingly, I disagee about Paul not being as good on this team. If Blake can do what he is doing on this team, what would Paul be doing? I remember Telfair saying that he needed to step up a be a scorer after Miles went down. We think so differnetly. I think just imagine what Paul would do in this situation while you are thinking Paul wouldn't do well in this system. (I don't know if you find it funny that two posters who know basketball analyze a situation completely opposite, but I do)

I think we both agree, Paul coming over here is never going to happen so let's hope Webster finds his shot in D league. Watch, if he finds his shot, Nate will find significant PT for him.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

The bottom line is Chris Paul is going to be a future All-Star in this league and Telfair is not. I have seen enough of Telfair to make a decision on him. As for Nash, I thought he couldn't do any worse, Webster is a worse pick than Telfair.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> The bottom line is Chris Paul is going to be a future All-Star in this league and Telfair is not. I have seen enough of Telfair to make a decision on him. As for Nash, I thought he couldn't do any worse, Webster is a worse pick than Telfair.


Why aren't you in detroits forum? Also, I doubt that you have some knack that lets you see enough to know that Telfair is even male let alone that he'll never ben an all star. There is no way to know that telfair is not an all star, or that webster is a worse pick than telfair.

have some perspective and patience (and have it in the pistons forum please). 

Damon looked good to start his career, and how many all star games has he gone to?

yah, exactly.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> That all makes sense and if this was a playoff contending team I would buy into this whole heartedly (ie JO never had a chance to blossom). But this Blazer team is all about allowing players to step up and Nate has given everyone a chance to play, including Webster. Webster has had his chances and by anyone's account he has been disappointing thus far. Sending a sixth overall pick to the D league says it all . . . Webster is being given every chance to develop his game. I know we see things differnently, but I can't belive you don't think Webster has been given his shot.
> 
> Also, not suprisingly, I disagee about Paul not being as good on this team. If Blake can do what he is doing on this team, what would Paul be doing? I remember Telfair saying that he needed to step up a be a scorer after Miles went down. We think so differnetly. I think just imagine what Paul would do in this situation while you are thinking Paul wouldn't do well in this system. (I don't know if you find it funny that two posters who know basketball analyze a situation completely opposite, but I do)


there's a difference between letting someone play regardless of how they play (and allowing them to grow that way) and being very restrictive of their playing time.

No where am I saying that Webster would be putting up the same #'s as Paul, but that in the Blazers system, he wouldn't be putting up the #'s he's putting up now, BECAUSE unlike the hornets, the blazers had 2 players ahead of him on the "priority" list.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> I have seen enough of Telfair to make a decision on him.


Then your work here is done!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> The bottom line is Chris Paul is going to be a future All-Star in this league and Telfair is not. I have seen enough of Telfair to make a decision on him. As for Nash, I thought he couldn't do any worse, Webster is a worse pick than Telfair.


Should I write it down in the chroncicles of history that solidguy3odamus predicted the great failure of Telfair in the year of 2006? Yep I will get right on that. :dead:


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> Why aren't you in detroits forum? Also, I doubt that you have some knack that lets you see enough to know that Telfair is even male let alone that he'll never ben an all star. There is no way to know that telfair is not an all star, or that webster is a worse pick than telfair.
> 
> have some perspective and patience (and have it in the pistons forum please).
> 
> ...


Just because I am a Pistons fan doesn't mean I can't post on the Blazers board, I still have ties to the Portland area and I watch Blazer games because I don't have NBA League Pass. Let's take out the selfish part because even Paul has knocks about him, like when he kicked someone in the balls. Chris Paul is going to lead his team to the playoffs in the first season, that says it all.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Just because I am a Pistons fan doesn't mean I can't post on the Blazers board, I still have ties to the Portland area and I watch Blazer games because I don't have NBA League Pass. Let's take out the selfish part because even Paul has knocks about him, like when he kicked someone in the balls. Chris Paul is going to lead his team to the playoffs in the first season, that says it all.


Time to move on... I think you should be elswhere complaining about how Joe Dumars passed on Wade to pick up Darko instead. We've got this one covered, but thanks for dropping by...


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

SolidGuy3 said:


> The bottom line is Chris Paul is going to be a future All-Star in this league and Telfair is not. I have seen enough of Telfair to make a decision on him. As for Nash, I thought he couldn't do any worse, Webster is a worse pick than Telfair.



No one takes you seriously. You have no eye for talent. You are the man that said, after one game, that Sergei Monia was going to be 'a stud'. 

Please, go to your new team, bandwagoner.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Time to move on... I think you should be elswhere complaining about how Joe Dumars passed on Wade to pick up Darko instead. We've got this one covered, but thanks for dropping by...


If you win a championship all is forgiven. That is why people don't bring up Houston when they passed up on Jordan because they won a title. I actually don't think the media should blame Portland because atleast the Portland fracnhise were at the finals twice, Jordan didn't bring down the Portland franchise.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

The Sebastian Express said:


> No one takes you seriously. You have no eye for talent. You are the man that said, after one game, that Sergei Monia was going to be 'a stud'.
> 
> Please, go to your new team, bandwagoner.


Yeah and he disappointed me. I still think Monia is going to be a better player than Webster.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Yeah and he disappointed me. I still think Monia is going to be a better player than Webster.



Good, and in a week, you will think Webster will be better. In two weeks, you will think Monia will be better than Viktor and Ruben. Why? Because you are a bandwagoner. You are a player bandwagoner, you are a team bandwagoner. You never stick to your guns. The minute they fail, you jump ship.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

The Sebastian Express said:


> Good, and in a week, you will think Webster will be better. In two weeks, you will think Monia will be better than Viktor and Ruben. Why? Because you are a bandwagoner. You are a player bandwagoner, you are a team bandwagoner. You never stick to your guns. The minute they fail, you jump ship.


No I don't. It had been building up inside of me. Last year I sticked to my guns through the losing process but I can't take it anymore, I'll go crazy if I stay with the Blazers!


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

Oh boohoo. Two years of losing, three years now. Twenty one years of playoffs. You can't take a little losing? It's gonna make you 'crazy'?. Well, you're already crazy, and I don't think the Blazers made you that way. 

Suck it up, don't be a weak bandwagoner. Bandwagoners ruin the sport. If the Pistons win this year, you'll get all excited like you were a life long fan. That isn't fair to those fans that stuck it out through hard times. So weak, so bad for the sport.

Man.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

The Sebastian Express said:


> Oh boohoo. Two years of losing, three years now. Twenty one years of playoffs. You can't take a little losing? It's gonna make you 'crazy'?. Well, you're already crazy, and I don't think the Blazers made you that way.
> 
> Suck it up, don't be a weak bandwagoner. Bandwagoners ruin the sport. If the Pistons win this year, you'll get all excited like you were a life long fan. That isn't fair to those fans that stuck it out through hard times. So weak, so bad for the sport.
> 
> Man.


Do you want me back!?


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

No. I want people like you to be banned from sports. Of course, that is incredibly insane to think would happen, but it should. If it could be, I wish it would be. 

I just find it funny, from people like you. Bandwagon fans who get angry when players aren't loyal, when players aren't commited, when players don't play with pride.

Bandwagoners are none of those things. So they lose that right to get angry at players.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Just because I am a Pistons fan doesn't mean I can't post on the Blazers board, I still have ties to the Portland area and I watch Blazer games because I don't have NBA League Pass.


you gave up on the team, so why would you care who they took or didn't take in a draft?

Seems to me, you just made a drama queen moment, and are having a hard time sticking with it.



> Let's take out the selfish part because even Paul has knocks about him, like when he kicked someone in the balls. Chris Paul is going to lead his team to the playoffs in the first season, that says it all.


Well, carmello anthony lead his team to the playoffs, and LeBron hasn't. I guess that says it all.


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> On this evaluation idea, why is it wrong to evaluate now? It may not be the most accurate evaluation, but players get evaluated even in high school. (When Lebron came out, there was all kinds of evaluations done after each game discussing weather he is the real deal or all hype.) Some players take longer to blossom, some never blossom, and some start kicking *** as soon as they hit the NBA. Most fans know that, so why not analyze how they have progressed thus far.
> 
> This is a chat board about the Blazers. Why is it so wrong to give gut feelings about players after 35 games. On the flip side, many are declaring Blake a success. Should the retort be that it is only 35 games so we can't evaluate whether Blake was a good signing until years later?


This is a great post, and I hope that I'm not giving the wrong impression by my previous post. Players should absolutely be evaluated at all times - by the organization as well as by the fans. What I object to are the absolute statements of "he was a bad pick and the team should have taken such and such instead". Those kind of statements change time and time again - why? Because of re-evaluation.

I guess that's what irks me. It's not the evaluation, it's the attitude of "I've evaluated today and never need evaluate ever again." that sometimes comes with the evaluation.

If you are not willing to re-evaluate, you're stuck in a world where you believe that Damon Stoudamire is better than Kevin Garnett, only because he put up bigger stats after their first 35 games in the league.

It's one thing to say that Chris Paul is a better player than Martell Webster. It's another thing entirely to pass the final judgement that the Blazers made a mistake in taking Webster.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It's one thing to say that Chris Paul is a better player than Martell Webster. It's another thing entirely to pass the final judgement that the Blazers made a mistake in taking Webster.


I agree, but it's disheartening to see Paul playing so well right out of the gate. If he's already this good, imagine how much better he'll be in two or three years! Webster, on the other hand, has yet to prove he can even play in this league. 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Martell. I like the kid and I really hope he makes it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> I agree, but it's disheartening to see Paul playing so well right out of the gate. If he's already this good, imagine how much better he'll be in two or three years! Webster, on the other hand, has yet to prove he can even play in this league.
> 
> I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Martell. I like the kid and I really hope he makes it.





God said:


> Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, his point guard, or anything else that is your neighbor's.


 :angel:


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Originally Posted by God
> Do not be envious of your neighbor's house. Do not be envious of your neighbor's wife, his slave, his maid, his ox, his donkey, his point guard, or anything else that is your neighbor's.


Funny!


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

HAP was right about what I ment that they would be still complaining no matter who we picked 

yeah if you have given up on the team you need to move on Solidguy or maybe you should change your name to cottagecheeseguy because that is about how solid you are when it comes to loyality. you are a bandwagoner being exposed in yoru Piston fit you need to fullfil that dream of being a pistons fan.


the one thing that will be interesting to see if paul will have a 2nd year slump when team know all about him.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Having watched Chris Paul tonight during most of the third quarter and part of the fourth, I have concluded that he is not going to be very good ever. 
I watched as he missed a three and then two two's and made a turnover and got a steal and and assist in about twelve minuets of play. Therefore he will never be an AllStar. He looks skinny and got backed down by a bigger guard and was just not effective with his defense. 

Telfair has a much stronger body and just as quick so Telfair will probably be an AllStar. And we have Telfair on our team. :banana: :biggrin: 

gatorpops


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Having watched Chris Paul tonight during most of the third quarter and part of the fourth, I have concluded that he is not going to be very good ever.
> I watched as he missed a three and then two two's and made a turnover and got a steal and and assist in about twelve minuets of play. Therefore he will never be an AllStar. He looks skinny and got backed down by a bigger guard and was just not effective with his defense.
> 
> Telfair has a much stronger body and just as quick so Telfair will probably be an AllStar. And we have Telfair on our team. :banana: :biggrin:
> ...


so while fellow blazer fans are having a conversation that 35 or so games is not enough time to amply evaluate a player, yet you somehow determined in 12 minutes of play that paul will never amount to anything. Apparently you missed the 2 crucial 3 pointers he drained to help his team win the game as well.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Tooeasy said:


> so while fellow blazer fans are having a conversation that 35 or so games is not enough time to amply evaluate a player, yet you somehow determined in 12 minutes of play that paul will never amount to anything. Apparently you missed the 2 crucial 3 pointers he drained to help his team win the game as well.


Yup, another game in the victory collumn for the Hornets... somehow they've reached 500 at 18-18 and are suprisingly only 1 game behind Denver in the playoff race. 

Paul finished with 16 pts and 9 assts 3 rbs and 2 steals. 

STOMP


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

STOMP said:


> Yup, another game in the victory collumn for the Hornets... somehow they've reached 500 at 18-18 and are suprisingly only 1 game behind Denver in the playoff race.
> 
> Paul finished with 16 pts and 9 assts 3 rbs and 2 steals.
> 
> STOMP


19-19 :smilewink


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

girllovesthegame said:


> 19-19 :smilewink


oops, I got confused by their *18*-64 record from last year. Not bad surpassing your win total from the previous year less then half way through the season... I wonder what they feel the difference is :wink: 

STOMP


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

STOMP said:


> oops, I got confused by their *18*-64 record from last year.
> 
> STOMP


 :laugh: I hear ya!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tooeasy said:


> so while fellow blazer fans are having a conversation that 35 or so games is not enough time to amply evaluate a player, yet you somehow determined in 12 minutes of play that paul will never amount to anything. Apparently you missed the 2 crucial 3 pointers he drained to help his team win the game as well.


I believe the banana and the smiley implies joking.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

If Chris Paul does well, great.

If not, no big loss.

If Martell and Telfair do well, awesome.

If not, well, Portland will survive somehow.

What's done is done, and everyone should give these players some time to develop and grow. Wait more than 40 or so games before completely slamming the franchise's direction. This growth and development thing won't happen overnight, and even with Paul, we wouldn't be doing that much better right now.

Can't we just give it time and save the rabid debate for when the players have matured?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

wastro said:


> If Chris Paul does well, great.
> 
> If not, no big loss.
> 
> ...


...be better positioned for the Greg Oden sweepstakes



> What's done is done, and everyone should give these players some time to develop and grow. Wait more than 40 or so games before completely slamming the franchise's direction. This growth and development thing won't happen overnight, and even with Paul, we wouldn't be doing that much better right now.
> 
> Can't we just give it time and save the rabid debate for when the players have matured?


this is a chatsite. so ahhh.... no.

I waited 2 years before I really started slamming the direction of the franchise. I'm glad the club has won a couple of games lately, but that doesn't mean I should't be able to recognise the mistakes that they've made... especially when I disagreed with their decisions when they were making them. Why would waiting 2-3 more games (as you suggested) be a more appropriate time to levy critisism?

STOMP


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> I believe the banana and the smiley implies joking.


sorry, its difficult to gauge sarcasm when someone dedicates an entire paragraph to knocking a player. maybe more proper placement of the banana and smiley would've done the trick in making it look like a joke post.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Tooeasy said:


> sorry, its difficult to gauge sarcasm when someone dedicates an entire paragraph to knocking a player. maybe more proper placement of the banana and smiley would've done the trick in making it look like a joke post.


Maybe you just need to know gatorpops... 

I have to say that Chris Paul is looking darn impressive at this stage of his career, but rookies have an innate advantage over other players. Opposing defenses and offenses aren't accustomed to what they can do, and confident, talented rookies can take advantage of that. He'll improve, it's true, but teams will get wise to his tendencies before long, as well. I'm not saying Telfair or Webster will turn out to be better than Chris Paul, but as others have said - this point of the season gives a skewed view. 

Also, I believe I read somewhere, perhaps here, that John Nash maintained that "the Blazers couldn't have gotten Paul at #3." Am I imagining that? The only plausible explanation for that I can think of is that New Orleans had a deal in place to make some kind of a swap that would have gotten them the #2. But that begs the question - why not force Paul to be the pick at #2 and then choose Marvin Williams at #3?. That raises an almost equally questionable choice - Martell + Jack over Marvin!


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Public Defender said:


> I have to say that Chris Paul is looking darn impressive at this stage of his career, but rookies have an innate advantage over other players. Opposing defenses and offenses aren't accustomed to what they can do, and confident, talented rookies can take advantage of that. He'll improve, it's true, but teams will get wise to his tendencies before long, as well. I'm not saying Telfair or Webster will turn out to be better than Chris Paul, but as others have said - this point of the season gives a skewed view.


Rookies have an innate advantage??? First time I've heard that theory... 



> Also, I believe I read somewhere, perhaps here, that John Nash maintained that "the Blazers couldn't have gotten Paul at #3." Am I imagining that?


 :yes: 

Nash could have selected Paul, but he didn't because he thought that Martell and Jack would be better. We shall see. 

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't agree Stomp. Some teams draft by talent, and some teams draft by need. I believe that Nash is of the second type. So he may not have necessarily thought that those two are better, but he may have felt that Paul didn't fit with the amount of PG already drafted over the last few years.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I don't agree Stomp. Some teams draft by talent, and some teams draft by need. I believe that Nash is of the second type. So he may not have necessarily thought that those two are better, but he may have felt that Paul didn't fit with the amount of PG already drafted over the last few years.


I'm a bit confused by your post, but maybe you were confused by mine. Maybe this is a better way to explain what I meant... but he didn't because he thought that Martell and Jack would be better _for Portland_. 

As far as the amount of PGs already drafted, he only had drafted one (Telfair) before and in this draft he took another (Jack). If he'd have drafted Paul instead of Webster and Jack he'd have the same amount of PGs and one less SG. 

and btw... I'm a big advocate for drafting talent over need and cringe to hear your opinion that Nash approaches things the other way. I think/hope his decisions may have him looking for a new job this offseason though.

STOMP


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I have to say that Chris Paul is looking darn impressive at this stage of his career, but rookies have an innate advantage over other players. Opposing defenses and offenses aren't accustomed to what they can do, and confident, talented rookies can take advantage of that.


Sorry, I don't buy it. All it takes is one time for a guy like Chris Paul to blow by you for a layup and you KNOW what kind of a player he is. The next time down you should be ready for him. Paul doesn't have a game from outer space; he's not so different from any other quick, good-shooting point guard. If a team can handle other guards like him (Marbury, Parker, et al), then why can't they handle Paul?

The truth is, he is GOOD and he's only going to get better. (Sidney Wicks is the only player I know whose career got worse as it went along!)


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> The truth is, he is GOOD and he's only going to get better. (Sidney Wicks is the only player I know whose career got worse as it went along!)


Damon Stoudamire 

STOMP


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> I don't agree Stomp. Some teams draft by talent, and some teams draft by need. I believe that Nash is of the second type. So he may not have necessarily thought that those two are better, but he may have felt that Paul didn't fit with the amount of PG already drafted over the last few years.



I agree. I think that mangement really has placed a lot of stock in the Telfair pick and pinned him as the PG of the future for the Blazers. I'm guessing the thinking was why use a #3 pick on a PG when the real need is a SG. No way you take Webster with the third pick, so trade down to pick up Webster and another pick. The Jack pick was a much lower pick and thought of as a back up to Telfair. 

Although Paul was slotted as the obvious third pick, no one could have known how well he would adjust to the NBA. I'm critical of Nash because appaerntly drafting was his strong trait as so far it looks to me like he has made two wrong calls . . . but I know, I know, it's too early to tell.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> Why aren't you in detroits forum? Also, I doubt that you have some knack that lets you see enough to know that Telfair is even male let alone that he'll never ben an all star. There is no way to know that telfair is not an all star, or that webster is a worse pick than telfair.
> 
> have some perspective and patience (and have it in the pistons forum please).
> 
> ...


Damon looked "good" to who?

Not to me. I never thought he was "good", even his rookie of the year campaign.


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Damon looked "good" to who?
> 
> Not to me. I never thought he was "good", even his rookie of the year campaign.


He evidently looked pretty good to Trader Bob, who brought him here and gave him that fat contract.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Damon looked "good" to who?
> 
> Not to me. I never thought he was "good", even his rookie of the year campaign.


well, he didn't to me either, but I think the point was that Damon had a good start to his career (stat wise) and some thought he was better than he was because of those stats.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Nash could have selected Paul, but he didn't because he thought that Martell and Jack would be better. We shall see.
> 
> STOMP



Nash has told me that neither him nor the scouts thought Martell or Jack would be better than Paul out the gate. He stated that they knew Paul would be better than both in the first season. So your statement seems a bit inaccurate.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

J_Bird said:


> He evidently looked pretty good to Trader Bob, who brought him here and gave him that fat contract.


You mean the same Trader Bob who traded for the drugged out blimp formerly known as Shawn Kemp, the same Trader Bob who traded Jermaine O'Neal for DD, ostensibly to guard Shaq, when it was known to all the world DD could not. Yeah, that guy, who never made a mistake.

Trader Bob swung for the fences and struck out a lot.

Damon was a crap player. He shot a lot at a poor percentage, dominated the ball to the team's detriment, couldn't guard a chair and was dumb as a rock.

Not that Damon couldn't play, he could hang on the court and he got really hot from time to time. Mainly Damon had balls and an ego and was a hometown hero. IMO Trader Bob thought Damon would get better. IMO Trader Bob thought if he lavished an All-Star contract (completely undeserved at the time) that Damon would aspire to live up to it and become the player and leader his stadium sized ego said he already was.

Strike Three, you are out.

I made a post years ago where I argued that Trader Bob's downfall, the single greatest failure he made was his trade for and then monster contract extension of Damon. Look it up.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Chris Paul currently has his team playing at a .500 level. Webster and Jack don't even come close to Paul. If Chris Paul was a Blazer, I would still be a Blazer fan.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Chris Paul currently has his team playing at a .500 level. Webster and Jack don't even come close to Paul. If Chris Paul was a Blazer, I would still be a Blazer fan.


if you're not a blazer fan, why do you continue posting here or giving your opinion here?

you're basically just trying to get attenetion, or are refusing to admit you made a "look at me!!!" post, and you crave the attention.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Hap said:


> if you're not a blazer fan, why do you continue posting here or giving your opinion here?
> 
> you're basically just trying to get attenetion, or are refusing to admit you made a "look at me!!!" post, and you crave the attention.


I live in the area and I watch the games because I try and watch as many NBA games as a I can. In my spare time, I enjoy watching ESPN, ESPN2, FSN, WGN, TNT and ABC basketball. I'm not the only one that has had it with the Blazers, I'm just not afraid to voice my displeasure with the organization.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

SolidGuy3 said:


> I live in the area and I watch the games because I try and watch as many NBA games as a I can. In my spare time, I enjoy watching ESPN, ESPN2, FSN, WGN, TNT and ABC basketball. I'm not the only one that has had it with the Blazers, I'm just not afraid to voice my displeasure with the organization.


you said you were done being a fan, and now were a pistons fan. go post there. 

Either that or admit that you made a post that you regret making, and are still a blazer fan. Go on, we won't mind if you admit yuo overreacted to telfair having a good game (which, ironically, he hasn't had since then).


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Nash has told me that neither him nor the scouts thought Martell or Jack would be better than Paul out the gate. He stated that they knew Paul would be better than both in the first season. So your statement seems a bit inaccurate.


:dead: 

I was responding to the statement that Nash somehow could not have selected Chris Paul with the #3 pick. Of course that was not the case... he made the draft day moves based on what he felt was best. 

Having reread what I posted, I'm not sure why you're taking my quoted statement to task. Though it looks like Nash may have made the wrong choice, I think it's too early IMO to cast any real blame around for this move, as good players often don't show much until their 2nd and even 3rd years in the league. That Martell is a strait from HS player, makes patience an even better idea IMO. That said, it's interesting for me to keep tabs on how the other guy is doing. 

Sam maybe you can recall that in some of our discussions this past summer on Chris Paul that I'd conclude my statements in support with _"we shall see"_? Remember all those predictions of Chris Paul struggling you made? How he wouldn't shoot 40% and how he'd get pushed around? Well... 16 pts, 43%, 6 RBs, 7 Assts, 2.2 TOs and 2nd in the league in steals at 2.2 per. Awarded rookie of the month honors for November and December.

Not bad IMO

STOMP


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

nash must have felt that webster and jack combined would have better careers in the long term.

why does everyone point to paul for the improvement its only 16 points could it be that other players are better as well?


----------



## J_Bird (Mar 18, 2005)

Masbee,

I had not intended to come across as supporting Whitsett or his moves to bring Damon here and then re-sign him to that deal. I was simply going for a smart*** response. Guess I should have thrown some [/sarcasm] tags around my post. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> nash must have felt that webster and jack combined would have better careers in the long term.
> 
> why does everyone point to paul for the improvement its only 16 points could it be that other players are better as well?


unless the player is Michael Jordan, or LeBron James or Dwyane Wade (or maybe Carmelo), a combo of 2 to 3 players that fill out your roster can be a better set-up.

I'd take Billups and Hamilton on the Pistons over Mcgrady on the Pistons.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

J_Bird said:


> Masbee,
> 
> I had not intended to come across as supporting Whitsett or his moves to bring Damon here and then re-sign him to that deal. I was simply going for a smart*** response. Guess I should have thrown some [/sarcasm] tags around my post. :biggrin:


Not that my diatribe reflects a concern for your agreement level towards Trader Bob's moves. I tend to respond more to the post than the poster. Your sarcasm is duly noted.

It did seem a perfect opportunity to throw in a baseball analogy (on a basketball forum), and use the lovely and absurd (take literally at your own risk) dis phrases, "couldn't guard a chair" and "dumb as a rock".


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

No biggie, point guards like Paul don't win titles.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Goldmember said:


> No biggie, point guards like Paul don't win titles.


Good point. Usually you need like 5 players on the floor to compete.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> No biggie, point guards like Paul don't win titles.


Really? I'd say Isiah Thomas had a lot to do with Detroit's titles. And Avery Johnson played a major role in the Spurs' title a few years ago.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Really? I'd say Isiah Thomas had a lot to do with Detroit's titles. And Avery Johnson played a major role in the Spurs' title a few years ago.


Chris Paul isn't Isaih Thomas, and Avery Johnson wasn't as much the reason the Spurs won as Tim Duncan and David Robinson were.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

While I believe you make a good point in the Thomas-Paul comparison, I don't see any similarity between Avery and Paul. Is there something I'm missing?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Goldmember said:


> No biggie, point guards like Paul don't win titles.


Point guards "like" Telfair don't win titles either.

Shooting Guards "like" Webster don't win titles either.

Teams with dominating Hall of Famers leading them win titles (San Antonio, Lakers (recent), Chicago, Houston), or deep teams, solid at every position including the bench and with good chemistry and coaching win titles (both Detroit squads), or scary teams with both depth and SuperStars (Lakers, Boston).

So, I fail to see your point.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Hap said:


> Chris Paul isn't Isaih Thomas, and Avery Johnson wasn't as much the reason the Spurs won as Tim Duncan and David Robinson were.


Hate to break this to you,but Paul is having a better rookie season than Zeke's
so far


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Diable said:


> Hate to break this to you,but Paul is having a better rookie season than Zeke's
> so far


well in that case, he's obviously better than Isiah Thomas. I mean, afterall, he's putting up better #'s than Isiah did.

btw, so did Damon...think Damon having a better rookie year made him better than Isiah?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Point guards "like" Telfair don't win titles either.
> 
> Shooting Guards "like" Webster don't win titles either.
> 
> ...


I don't disagree about the "dominating hall of famers" arguement, but who's the hall of famer on the Pistons?

When Billups or Hamilton were rookies, I doubt anyone thought they'd be the leaders of a title team, and argubably 2 of the best guards in the NBA.

Whereas, people seemed to have thought that McGrady would be a player to lead his team to the promised land (twice actually).


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

PER Isiah's rookie season +14.5

Chris Paul rookie season +20.9


Isiah's best three seasons +20.9,+22.2,+21.2(no other seasons over +20)


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Damon had a better\as good as year as a rookie than Paul is having now...

Paul could get better...he could stay the same...he could get worse....

Judging him as a better FUTURE player based on this season is ridiculous IMO....

Time will tell if Webster, Jack and Det #30 collectively are better than Paul...

If you want to judge after a 1/2 season then you win...congratulations on proving an entirely meaningless point....


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> I don't disagree about the "dominating hall of famers" arguement, but who's the hall of famer on the Pistons?
> 
> When Billups or Hamilton were rookies, I doubt anyone thought they'd be the leaders of a title team, and argubably 2 of the best guards in the NBA.
> 
> Whereas, people seemed to have thought that McGrady would be a player to lead his team to the promised land (twice actually).


It is an either/or.

EITHER "lead by dominating hall of famer" Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan.

OR, "deep teams, solid at every position including the bench and with good chemistry and coaching". Pistons are the model of this example.

Best of all is both a Hall of Fame leader and quality depth. Lakers with Magic, Boston with Bird.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> It is an either/or.
> 
> EITHER "lead by dominating hall of famer" Shaq, Jordan, Hakeem, Duncan.
> 
> ...


I missed where you said "or". my apologies.

I think you can build a team full of 5 solid players and a decent bench easier than going after 1 player you hope is a 'superstar' and then fill in the bench. 

I think, as things stand now, Telfair, Webster and Paul each stand the same shot at winning a title. bupkiss. 

I'd give a slight lead to portland, mostly due to an owner who's willing to spend big bucks if need be, and an overall better youth to tinker with (either by trade, or development). I'm not saying that the Hornets have no 'youth' to speak of. 

Of course it all depends on how well the team plays as a team. Sometimes less "talented" teams win over more talented teams.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Damon had a better\as good as year as a rookie than Paul is having now...
> 
> Paul could get better...he could stay the same...he could get worse....
> 
> ...


Did you actually look this up before you wrote this?

Cause, your statement didn't sound right to me. So I looked it up and don't know what you are talking about.

Damon's 95-96 Tendex 21.01 (9th best for PGs that year), per 48 less than 26.90
Chris Paul's Tendex (so far) 22.06 (6th best for PGs this year), per 48 29.50.

Then look at their team's winning percentage. Then remember that Damon had a roster of more talented teammates.

Paul has been better on every account, except for maybe minutes played and shots taken.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Then look at their team's winning percentage. Then remember that Damon had a roster of more talented teammates.


were the Raptors in Damons rookie year really that much more talented?

They had a bunch of cast-offs, and no names on that team. Damon, tracey murray and Oliver miller were probably their best players. A lot of their picks were old vets, who were on their last legs.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> were the Raptors in Damons rookie year really that much more talented?
> 
> They had a bunch of cast-offs, and no names on that team. Damon, tracey murray and Oliver miller were probably their best players. A lot of their picks were old vets, who were on their last legs.


You could be right. I thought they had Doug Christie and Marcus Camby.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Masbee said:


> You could be right. I thought they had Doug Christie and Marcus Camby.


Wow @ Doug Christie. I seem to think that Paul has more talent around him, West, Snyder, Smith, Mason.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Wow @ Doug Christie. I seem to think that Paul has more talent around him, West, Snyder, Smith, Mason.


Smith is having a terrible slump this part of the season, and very much and up and down sophmore year so far. Is not contributing much to the team.

I have never been impressed with Mason. I consider him a lightweight. Ok, but not a game changer and very easily replaceable. And the Hornets traded their all-star center for him and have no one at center.

Snyder. You are kidding right?

West, now that guy is a big surprise and is playing real well.

Don't dis on Christie (or Camby). He has had a long NBA career. Can do a lot of things. And most importantly, plays both sides of the floor, something a lot of players who are stat hounds refuse to do.

Anyway, this doesn't matter, as the Raptors didn't have Camby in Damon's rookie season. Without him, they must have had a crap roster, kinda like the Hornet's.

So, I retract the statement that Damon had a better roster. He didn't.

Not that the Hornets roster is great. That team is winning off the backs of Paul, first and foremost, with big contributions from West and PJ Brown, who has a second wind to his career. Amazing what a great PG can do for decent bigs and their game. As gets said over and over, bigs don't have the ball in their hands. They find it hard to help the team offensively with crummy pgs.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Come on MAsbee...

Per 48min? That holds little weight in any arguement IMO...


Oooh Paul's Tendex per 48min looked better than Damon's? That is a stretch. Damon scored more, dished out more assists, shot a better 3pt FG%..

Don't make me defend Damon, b\c I do not think Damon is better than Paul will be
Like I said before...Paul MAY get better...He MAY get worse...or he MAY produce the same....But to fawn all over him like he is the next coming or blissfully pronounce he will end up better than Telfair is ridiculous at this time....


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually Damon Stoudamire was not even close to Paul as a rookie and the only
PG I could find with a PER close to as a rookie is Magic Johnson at +20.6

The only players I have found so far with higher rookie PER's are Wilt,Oscar and MJ.Lebron is the only player I've found so far to have a higher PER at the age of 20 (actually 19 as he and Paul are about the same age).I haven't checked everyone,but I have looked at Kobe(not higher until he was 21), Carmelo, DWade,AI,Larry Bird,Magic, and a lot of other PG's.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

You people seem to forget the Chris Paul is #3 in the NBA in steals per game and #2 overall in steals. Telfair can't play defense, that's the bottom line. Chris Paul is a guy that can win an MVP in the future.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Actually Damon Stoudamire was not even close to Paul as a rookie


Uh...that is completely incorrect..Try looking up more than per 48 and Tendex stats..


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Uh...that is completely incorrect..Try looking up more than per 48 and Tendex stats..


Ok, then stick this in your pipe and smoke it -

*SCOREBOARD !!!!!*


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

PER is Player Efficiency Chris Paul 20.9

damon stoudamire 16.7 as a rookie,best season 18.1 in 1997.

Stoudamire has never had one season when he was nearly as good as Paul has been so far his rookie season.He was also two or three years older as a rookie

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/stoudda01.html


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Point guards "like" Telfair don't win titles either.
> 
> Shooting Guards "like" Webster don't win titles either.
> 
> ...


Big men win titles, not point guards that dominate the ball.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Goldmember said:


> Big men win titles, not point guards that dominate the ball.


Isaiah Thomas.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Isiah is the exception and not the rule. He was also on the team that revolutionalized the way defense is played in the NBA.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Ok, then stick this in your pipe and smoke it -
> 
> SCOREBOARD !!!!!


:rofl:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Isaiah Thomas.


You think Isiah Thomas was the main reason the Pistons won those championships?....

He was definitely good, but so was Bill Laimbeer, Joe Dumars, Vinnie Johnson, Mark Aguirre, Dennis Rodman, Rick Mahorn and others....

Paul will never even win a playoff series with the teammates he has now..

Name the last team to win a championship with one star player.....Even Michael had Scottie...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah paul made his team lose last game


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

I don't get it. new orleans hornets were supposed to be the dead last team in the western conference if not the whole league in the beginning of the season. instead, they are one game out of the playoffs. one game, with that roster... I don't think anyone expected them to compete this season, especially with all the stuff going on with new orleans etc.

they have already won more games than the whole of last season. with a rookie leading the way...



> Paul will never even win a playoff series with the teammates he has now..


with the teammates he has now, it's a miracle they are as close to the playoffs as they are. chris paul is GOOD.

in comparison to stoudamire, almost anyone can have good stats in a bad team. 21-61 vs 19-20. think about it.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well chris paul hasnt hit the rookie wall yet when and if he does the hornets with sink as they are overachieving right now big time, it will catch up with them injuries you man it.


----------



## el_Diablo (May 15, 2003)

> well chris paul hasnt hit the rookie wall yet when and if he does the hornets with sink as they are overachieving right now big time, it will catch up with them injuries you man it.


doesn't this argument just show how good he has been so far?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

el_Diablo said:


> doesn't this argument just show how good he has been so far?


I don't think you understand. Some posters have previously claimed that Chris isn't very good. Regardless of how he actually plays and how well the Hornets are doing, they are going to stick to their guns and throw everything and the kitchen sink at conflicting reports. It's the classic _Nah! Nah! Nah! I can't hear you!_ stonewall... which we tend to get a lot of that around here.

If he keeps playing well and you insist on pointing to the facts, you will probably be called some names. Be afraid...

STOMP


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

el_Diablo said:


> I don't get it. new orleans hornets were supposed to be the dead last team in the western conference if not the whole league in the beginning of the season. instead, they are one game out of the playoffs. one game, with that roster... I don't think anyone expected them to compete this season, especially with all the stuff going on with new orleans etc.
> 
> they have already won more games than the whole of last season. with a rookie leading the way...
> 
> ...


The nice and longer version of "SCOREBOARD !!!".


----------



## girllovesthegame (Nov 3, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> well chris paul hasnt hit the rookie wall yet when and if he does the hornets with sink as they are overachieving right now big time, it will catch up with them injuries you man it.


Wow Utherhimo! You're hating just a little too hard aren't you? Lighten up dude. I'll bet you were one that cheered when you heard Paul had torn a ligament in his thumb right? I still don't understand why everyone thinks that because they had that one bad season last season that it was always going to be that way.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

Chris Paul had 27 points and 13 assists as his team beat the Knicks 109-98. Right now Hornets are 0.5 games behind Minnesota for the final playoff spot. Before the season started many people had the Hornets and Blazers as teams competing for the worst record in the NBA, Chris Paul has changed that and now he is going to lead his team to the playoffs where I predict they will make it to the second round or beyond.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

he's leading all rookies in points and assists and his team is on the verge of playoff level - our rookie is in the d-league. i know people will say it doesnt matter and 'give them time' etc and that if we give them enough time and enough green lights they will become special players.... well paul is already there imo - i was absolutely in favor of keeping the 3rd and taking Paul if he was still there. paul was a proven commodity at col level and yet again we took another pick based on potential rather than readiness for the NBA- hindsight is 20/20 and in all honesty i cant believe anyone wouldnt change the past if we could. in nash's defence he (thankfully) made some great covering signings in blake and dixon which has helped ease the blow (and actually proved to be more valuable alternatives) of webster being weak out the blocks and telfair's injury and erratic performances.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Chris Paul had 27 points and 13 assists as his team beat the Knicks 109-98. Right now Hornets are 0.5 games behind Minnesota for the final playoff spot. Before the season started many people had the Hornets and Blazers as teams competing for the worst record in the NBA, Chris Paul has changed that and now he is going to lead his team to the playoffs where I predict they will make it to the second round or beyond.


Solidguy3-Odamas has spoken! :clown: 

:banana:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

LOL! Jamaal Crawford was guarding him in the NY game. Martell lit Jamaal up for 52 in a pickup game once. :biggrin:


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

Yeah, but he also fouled out Nate Robinson, who's regarded as a pretty good defender.

Dan


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SolidGuy3 said:


> Chris Paul has changed that and now he is going to lead his team to the playoffs where I predict they will make it to the second round or beyond.


Ice storm.


----------

