# Zach Randolph



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

I want him on this team. Why he gets zero minutes I have no clue. He is 6'10" 280lbs. and runs the floor like a SF. He can play center or PF. He is very similar to Jermaine, in that he is very talented but is stuck behind dead weight like Shawn Kemp and Dale Davis. 

I wonder if we could offer anyone for him?


----------



## absolutebest (Jun 10, 2002)

What about that dead weight he carries on his frame? Isn't he a little heavy?

And I think Portland will think twice before trading any young, unproven talent to us again.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Why get more unproven tallent? I dont understand some of you. Look at our lineup. Young tallent is good and all. But enough. We have the youngest team. We have the most, and best young group of tallent. We have enough, the re building is done. No need for Randolf


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

I think it would be nice to have Randolph the first big guy off of the bench instead of Jeff Foster.

As for his dead weight, he is very fast for his size. He runs the court faster than Jermaine. 

The kings just added Keon to deepen their frontcourt. I don't really see the problem with adding depth to the frontcourt.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

yea Randolph would be great if he got to see some time to play...And it would be nice to see he is a different uni instead of seein him on a Trailblazer bench stuck behind the old guy Davis and Kemp


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

That's the problems with the Blazers, they are deep and talented and they don't take adavantage of it, they just keep loading up all the positions with FA's and vets , until the bench is swamped. J.O. is a perfect example of that, and YES Zach has an upside, but we'll never see it, he would fit perfect in any team.


----------



## clownskull (Jun 21, 2002)

the reason zach gets no minuetes in portland is because wallace would throw a sh%$ fit if his time were to go down. and also because the blazers are eternaly stupid. we got oneal from them so i doubt they would send us randolph. he is an interesting player and should get more pt but portland is locked into it with rasheed. he makes boku bucks but isn't a player other teams want because he is a cancer to a team and the g.m.'s around the league know it. portland is stuck with him. i doubt zach will resighn with the blazers when his contract is done.


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

Randolph can play center. The problem is, just like any opther young player it takes a bit of time to get good. So if he is just handed minutes in front of those guys it will screw up chemistry because those guys will be pissed. It will get even more clogged with Sabonis coming back. and they just play power forwards as back up centers.

C:Sabonis/Davis
PF:Wallace/Kemp

These guys take up all the minutes.


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

I would just like Randolph to take Foster's spot because Foster has no O game.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Foster doesnt need to play offence. Hes a role player. Hes a great rebounder. Thats why we want to keep him. We're soft on the boards and losing him would hurt the team more than you realize. Stocking up on scorers and forgeting about defence and rebounding will get this team nowhere. We already have enough great scorers, we need more rebounding strength now, not throw it away.


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

Randolph could still pull down rebounds, but would supply more all around game instead of *just* rebounding he would rebound and score.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

We DONT need more scoring though. Improving where we are weak is the key to winning. And if you think Foster has no scoring game at all go to nba.com. Hes beat out Jordan so far for play of the year.


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

*LOL*

Are you talking about that shot where it shows him flying over Maggette? If so, guess what. He never dunked. He fell before he hit the rim. And he got called for charging, and the Pacers lost by 20 points. And Foster averaged 5 points a game.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

For the last time, its good he averaged 5 points a game. WE DONT NEED, OR WANT ANOTHER SCORER. Look at the blazers. If you were GM, thats where our team would be right now. Getting alot of great scorers, no role players.


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

What the hell, you make it sound like Randolph is a big star or something. *He can rebound.* He can also score. He also plays better defense than Foster. You could get rid of Cro and put Randolph in Foster's spot. 


Who is a better player? Foster or Randolph? I think we all know the answer to this one.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yea, we do know the answer. And right now, its Foster. Maybe in the future it will be Randolf, but right now its Foster. And just for your info, Randolf isnt a great rebounder. I dont know where you heard that from, but hes ok, not great though. And how does getting Randolf get rid of Chroshere?


----------



## Sir I Gotta Go (Jul 7, 2002)

I said you could get rid of Cro. Then get Randolph and let him work his way into the rotation. 

I look at Randolph and see a Jermaine O'Neal rotting away on Portland's bench. He could be very good.


----------

