# Jason Quick comment



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know if it was his choice of words, but there's a part of the title of the article (on the 2nd page of the article) that implies that he thinks Pritchard is "blowing sunshine" at Telfair..

seem's kind of odd that he'd make that claim about someone, when he's been doing that to Damon for 4+ years now.

as in: they mention Telfairs 5 turnvers..but nothing of Damons 4.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Like I said: Anything to destabilize the Blazers. Damon has been far from everyone's favorite here... and on pretty much any other Blazers forum... yet strangely Quick has been a full-fledged Damon homer for the past several years. The destabilization theory might explain why.

:whoknows:

PBF


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> I don't know if it was his choice of words, but there's a part of the title of the article (on the 2nd page of the article) that implies that he thinks Pritchard is "blowing sunshine" at Telfair..
> 
> seem's kind of odd that he'd make that claim about someone, when he's been doing that to Damon for 4+ years now.
> 
> as in: they mention Telfairs 5 turnvers..but nothing of Damons 4.


I know, I had the same reaction when I saw the boxscore. Let's see, one had 11 points, 7 assists and 5 turnovers, the other had 20 points, 3 assists and 4 turnovers. Which one is more of a point guard?


----------



## Blazerfan024 (Aug 15, 2003)

And whenever Damon came in are tempo would stop...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> Which one is more of a point guard?


Well, they were running Stoudamire at the SG rather than PG, so it isn't a fair comparison.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Blazerfan024 said:


> And whenever Damon came in are tempo would stop...


The tempo may have stopped, but there is nothing to say that the tempo was good with either player.

Telfair has really looked subpar since being a starter. He's going to be great, but I would rather have Mo Baker in there right now. 

How many times did Telfair refuse to acknowledge the pick and pop? It was open all night... and he made the pass ONCE and almost threw it out of bounds.

He needs to quit looking for the flashy/highlight pass and start making the ones that help the team win. That's a LOT more important than looking pretty.

Play.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> The tempo may have stopped, but there is nothing to say that the tempo was good with either player.
> 
> Telfair has really looked subpar since being a starter. He's going to be great, but I would rather have Mo Baker in there right now.
> 
> Play.


Is that the same Maurice Baker who has zero points, 1 assist and 1 turnover in 13 career minutes? 

Because I don't think that's a guy I'd want out on the court any more than I had to put him there.

I don't think Maurice Baker has much of a future with this team. So who cares if Telfair makes mistakes and learns on the job. That's pretty much what we all expected, isn't it?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Fork said:


> Is that the same Maurice Baker who has zero points, 1 assist and 1 turnover in 13 career minutes?


Yes. Considering the amount of time he has practiced with the team, I liked what I saw. 

He isn't going to dazzle anyone, but I think he's a solid guy.



> Because I don't think that's a guy I'd want out on the court any more than I had to put him there.


Really - so you'd rather put the NBA leader in TOs per 48 minutes out there?

You have to judge someone on more than stats. The guy looked solid and made the right passes. He didn't make mistakes - which a LOT of the time is more important than making plays.

Play.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Well, they were running Stoudamire at the SG rather than PG, so it isn't a fair comparison.
> 
> Play.


Play is right. Damon's 4TO's at SG are far worse than Telfair's 5TO's at PG.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Really - so you'd rather put the NBA leader in TOs per 48 minutes out there?
> 
> You have to judge someone on more than stats. The guy looked solid and made the right passes.
> Play.


If that isn't a contradictory statement then I really don't know what is!

Let Telfair learn the system and get a better feel for the NBA game. He will never be a great player unless he gets the necessary game experience that it takes to be comfortable in the NBA... and i think this is about the best time to do that!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Really - so you'd rather put the NBA leader in TOs per 48 minutes out there?
> 
> You have to judge someone on more than stats. The guy looked solid and made the right passes. He didn't make mistakes - which a LOT of the time is more important than making plays.
> 
> Play.


Considering that Maurice Baker's future with the Blazers is probably about 5 more days, I bet you and Maurice Baker (and maybe his family) are the only ones who want to see him out there. 

Of course you have to judge on more than stats. Like...potential to make an impact in the future. If the goal was to have a guy who has a nice assist to turnover ratio, why not throw Damon out there? Oh yeah...because he's not going to be with the team next year.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Really - so you'd rather put the NBA leader in TOs per 48 minutes out there?


I guess Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Stevie Francis and Dwyane Wade shouldn't be out there neither...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Fork said:


> Considering that Maurice Baker's future with the Blazers is probably about 5 more days, I bet you and Maurice Baker (and maybe his family) are the only ones who want to see him out there.


I just like to see someone that actually runs an offense run the team.

Telfair doesn't. He's ignorant half the time he is out there.



> Of course you have to judge on more than stats. Like...potential to make an impact in the future. If the goal was to have a guy who has a nice assist to turnover ratio, why not throw Damon out there? Oh yeah...because he's not going to be with the team next year.


Well -- put my 2 year old cousin out there. He has TONS of potential. 

But, you can't mid-discussion change why you said what you said ... you tried intimating that you didn't want Baker out there, because his stats weren't good. NOT because he wasn't going to be with the team next year.

If this is your stance, than I can't argue. But, what I can argue is that he runs the team better than Telfair did.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> I guess Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Stevie Francis and Dwyane Wade shouldn't be out there neither...


Wow ... all of them are currently the league leaders in TO per 48 minutes?

Jeez. That's a clogged title.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

stupendous said:


> If that isn't a contradictory statement then I really don't know what is!


That was the point. 

He was judging it on stats - so using stats I was showing why you wouldn't want Telfair out there. 

This would be an incorrect statement.

Try to stay with the discussion.



> Let Telfair learn the system and get a better feel for the NBA game.


He's been learning it for a year and still sucks.



> He will never be a great player unless he gets the necessary game experience that it takes to be comfortable in the NBA... and i think this is about the best time to do that!


I don't think he'll EVER be a great player. I think he'll be a Damon Stoudamire if he continues the way he is playing. He just doesn't read the floor very well.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Wow ... all of them are currently the league leaders in TO per 48 minutes?
> 
> Jeez. That's a clogged title.
> 
> Play.


oh, so it's only because he's the "league leader"?

So if it was in, say, 2nd place, you wouldn't complain?

good to know.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> oh, so it's only because he's the "league leader?
> 
> So if it was in, say, 2nd place, you wouldn't complain?
> 
> good to know.


Well, considering I said - LEAGUE LEADER and it was to prove a point outside of the fact that Telfair was the league leader in TOs ... it was to prove that this stat doesn't really mean he shouldn't be playing ... I think your comment was absurd.

But - considering night in and night out - that's the only category that he seems to repeat ... I think it is because he is a league leader. The other guys actually contribute to their teams and make good decisions with the ball ... whereas Telfair does not. 

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Well, considering I said - LEAGUE LEADER and it was to prove a point outside of the fact that Telfair was the league leader in TOs ... it was to prove that this stat doesn't really mean he shouldn't be playing ... I think your comment was absurd.


my comment that there are a lot of good players who turn the ball over a lot, was absurd? Or was it my comment asking if he was the 2nd place leader you wouldn't complain? because i don't see where you're coming off sounding like you pulled a fast one over us..



> But - considering night in and night out - that's the only category that he seems to repeat ... I think it is because he is a league leader. The other guys actually contribute to their teams and make good decisions with the ball ... whereas Telfair does not.
> 
> Play.


yep. never does anything good.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Tince said:


> Play is right.


I normally am.



> Damon's 4TO's at SG are far worse than Telfair's 5TO's at PG.


Incorrect.

Damon's TOs weren't major mistakes or dribbling it off his foot or throwing errant cross-court passes through the center of the lane ... they were mostly due to another player mishandling the ball.

I'm no Damon fan ... but his TOs were far less stupid than the one's from Telfair. Telfair has no clue half the time he's out there. It's painful to watch at times. 

Granted -- he's young. But, he certainly plays that way too.

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

The Blazers have no choice, *but * to play Telfair currently. It really doesn't matter if he isn't performing up to his draft position (and he isn't). They simply have to force-feed him minutes and hope that he improves. This season is a lost cause and it actually helps the organization if they lose games. Of course if Telfair continues his poor play next season they will have to make a change.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> my comment that there are a lot of good players who turn the ball over a lot, was absurd? Or was it my comment asking if he was the 2nd place leader you wouldn't complain? because i don't see where you're coming off sounding like you pulled a fast one over us..


No - the fact that you thought I was trying to actually make a point that being the leader in TOs per 48 minutes means he should not be playing - and then commenting on this. That's absurd.

Follow the thread. 

He mentions Bakers stats as if this is some magic depiction of his prowess on the court and makes the comment that because of these stats he shouldn't ever be on the floor. 

I mention Telfair leads the league in TOs ... therefore he shouldn't be on the floor.

Two equally asinine statements considering all the facts. Telfair is being groomed for the future and is young. Mistakes will happen. Baker has only been with the team 3 days, he's looked good in his short time, and mistakes will happen when you don't practice much with a team. 

THAT, my friend, was the point.



> yep. never does anything good.


Keep saying it over and over. Because at this point - it is the truth. Telfair has rarely yielded any positive results where a PG should have results.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)




----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> The Blazers have no choice, *but * to play Telfair currently. It really doesn't matter if he isn't performing up to his draft position (and he isn't). They simply have to force-feed him minutes and hope that he improves. This season is a lost cause and it actually helps the organization if they lose games. Of course if Telfair continues his poor play next season they will have to make a change.


DEAR GOD!

A voice of reason amongst the rabble!

Thank you!

That's what I am preaching and, obviously, unable to impart.

Thank you.

Play.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> No - the fact that you thought I was trying to actually make a point that being the leader in TOs per 48 minutes means he should not be playing - and then commenting on this. That's absurd.
> 
> Follow the thread.
> 
> ...


first of all...you consider me a friend!? woo!!!

er...

I know that was your point, but to counter Bakers lack of time on the court with the stat of per 48, is kind of like comparing some kind of fruit that people like, to another kind of fruit that people also like, but is vastly different than the first one. Oh sure, both are tastey, and look somewhat the same, but they are totally different fruits. So comparing them doesn't seem to work.

You know, like Turkeys to chicken.



> Keep saying it over and over. Because at this point - it is the truth. Telfair has rarely yielded any positive results where a PG should have results.
> 
> Play.


hm..who's opinion do I put more stock into...yours..or the teams...yours..or NBA scouts and other players...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

play make is just upset doeman isnt the start pg anymore


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I normally am.


Did it just get arrogant in here?


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


>


Don't take me serious, I don't care. 

You're the one building up the kid like ice cream comes out of his ***. He has NOT looked good. Period.

He's had small flashes ... at most.

But, he consistantly makes the same errors and consistantly makes errors that a first grader shouldn't make ... 

He's used to getting away with this garbage in HS, I'm sure. But, let's be honest at this point ... he is NOT a pass-first PG. He doesn't see the floor all that well. He tries to be FAR too flashy for no reason, thus resulting in TOs. The guy leads NY in scoring for a PG ... how pass-first could he be?

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> first of all...you consider me a friend!? woo!!!
> 
> er...
> 
> ...


Is it just me, or does this post appear to be nonsensible to anyone else?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> The Blazers have no choice, *but * to play Telfair currently. It really doesn't matter if he isn't performing up to his draft position (and he isn't). They simply have to force-feed him minutes and hope that he improves. This season is a lost cause and it actually helps the organization if they lose games. Of course if Telfair continues his poor play next season they will have to make a change.



is Al Jefferson playing up to his "draft position"?

how is 11 points and almost 7 assists as a starter, not acceptable? and what exactly is a 13th pick supposed to perform like?

please tell us, oh draft ghuru...


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> first of all...you consider me a friend!? woo!!!


No need to be an *******.



> I know that was your point, but to counter Bakers lack of time on the court with the stat of per 48, is kind of like comparing some kind of fruit that people like, to another kind of fruit that people also like, but is vastly different than the first one. Oh sure, both are tastey, and look somewhat the same, but they are totally different fruits. So comparing them doesn't seem to work.


Ummm... no it isn't. It was to prove the simple fact that you can't use a statistically-insignificant number to explain why you wouldn't want someone on the court - thus I used the other stat to prove that usage of stats in this manner is absurd.

It is nothing like comparing turkeys and children. 

But thanks for trying. I know logic is a really hard concept for you to grasp, Hap. You'd rather pick and choose how you'll respond - and thus ensure that you come across as big a ***** as possible. It's your MO, it's cool.



> hm..who's opinion do I put more stock into...yours..or the teams...yours..or NBA scouts and other players...


Harold Minor?

The question you have to ask is:

Does the league and the team have something to gain from making a good looking, well spoken young man like Telfair into a superstar? 

The answer is a resounding yes. Thus, you have to ask if they don't hyper-inflate him for no reason.

Kind of like the people here. I mean, I was reading today that everyone was impressed with Ha's layup.... 1 LAYUP! Good god. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> play make is just upset doeman isnt the start pg anymore


COnsidering I don't even know who you are referring to -- I really just have to shrug my shoulders.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

TradeShareefNow said:


> Did it just get arrogant in here?


That's just my sense of humor. 

I mean, I'm not arrogant,
I'm just better than you.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

tlong said:


> Is it just me, or does this post appear to be nonsensible to anyone else?


Thank you again - I wanted to comment, but it was too jarbled to really pull it apart.

I tried. I really did.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> Keep saying it over and over. Because at this point - it is the truth. Telfair has rarely yielded any positive results where a PG should have results.


So are you suggesting we put Damon back at the point? Damon will do the same thing at the point as he has all year; lose games.....Why not give a kid straight out of high school some burn and develop him into what you said earlier in this post...."great" point guard.......I see no sense in continuing to start Damon and lose games, when we can start Telfair and lose games just as easy, except for while were losing games we can give him some quality experience and try to develop him more.....


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Don't take me serious, I don't care.
> 
> You're the one building up the kid like ice cream comes out of his ***. He has NOT looked good. Period.
> 
> ...


What part of 'so what' do you not understand? 

He's the future (for right or wrong) at the PG position for the Blazers. He has to work through the mistakes. There are dozens of guys who could play the point better than him...but they haven't been handed the keys to the franchise. Telfair has. 

All the kvetching in the world by people like you and tlong won't change that. Deal with it.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Hap said:


> how is 11 points and almost 7 assists as a starter, not acceptable? and what exactly is a 13th pick supposed to perform like?
> 
> please tell us, oh draft ghuru...


Ummmm... 

I won't comment on the performing up to pick, but I will say he isn't performing to a level that should indicate to anyone that he'll ever be super-PG-man like you all want him to be.

He has potential ... no doubt. 

But, going back to it ... it isn't the statistics that you should focus on. He doesn't get assists from making people better or getting people open looks. He gets them, much in the same manner as Damon Stoudamire. He runs around long enough and finally passes it and someone takes a covered jumper. Then he'll get a few fast break assists. Not impressive. 

A GOOD PG gets assists by getting his teammates involved and using picks and screens and breaking down the defense ... not to score, but to dish to an open player.

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> is Al Jefferson playing up to his "draft position"?
> 
> how is 11 points and almost 7 assists as a starter, not acceptable? and what exactly is a 13th pick supposed to perform like?
> 
> please tell us, oh draft ghuru...



Yes. Al Jefferson *IS * playing up to his draft position. Let's take a look at rookie statistics per 48 minutes played, shall we?

Point per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 2nd.
Rbds per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 5th.
Off Rbds per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 3rd.
FG's made per 48 minutesb : Al Jefferson is 3rd.
FT's attempted per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 5th.
Blocks per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 3rd.
Effifiency per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 2nd.

Next question.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Fork said:


> What part of 'so what' do you not understand?


It isn't WHO WAS or WHO WASN'T annointed the PG of the future. 

It's that everyone consistantly licks his crotch. People call him pass-first. People talk about his "amazing" court vision. People talk about how he makes the team better.

What I see -- night in and out -- is a kid that can't get the ball to the right man and can't break down a defense and pass. 

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> So are you suggesting we put Damon back at the point?


I never suggested such a thing.

Play.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> A GOOD PG gets assists by getting his teammates involved and using picks and screens and breaking down the defense ... not to score, but to dish to an open player.



And I'm sure Steve Nash, Jason Kidd and Stephon Marbury were all doing this there rookie years as well.....


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> It isn't WHO WAS or WHO WASN'T annointed the PG of the future.
> 
> It's that everyone consistantly licks his crotch. People call him pass-first. People talk about his "amazing" court vision. People talk about how he makes the team better.
> 
> ...



I don't think he finishes at the hoop all that well either.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I never suggested such a thing.
> 
> Play.


What are you trying to prove here then?


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Play is right... 19 year old point guards straight out of high school really should have no time to develop. At that age they have either got it or they don't. 5 turnovers and only 7 assists? I mean this grown man who has been legally entitled to buy cigarettes or watch porno for the last YEAR. Preposterous. Only 11 points? Terrible. I say we throw the towel in on Telfair now, he obviously is going to be trash in the future. Sure he has potential, but Play is right again, so does his 2 year old nephew. Lets play Mo Baker, because he can handle the offense now, since he just got here, and we are making a big push for the playoffs.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

stupendous said:


> Play is right... 19 year old point guards straight out of high school really should have no time to develop. At that age they have either got it or they don't. 5 turnovers and only 7 assists? I mean this grown man who has been legally entitled to buy cigarettes or watch porno for the last YEAR. Preposterous. Only 11 points? Terrible. I say we throw the towel in on Telfair now, he obviously is going to be trash in the future. Sure he has potential, but Play is right again, so does his 2 year old nephew. Lets play Mo Baker, because he can handle the offense now, since he just got here, and we are making a big push for the playoffs.



Agreed......

Can we sign your 2 year old nephew to a 10 day contract?......I think he might be a little more court savvy.......


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Play is not suggesting that Telfair be benched. He is merely pointing out that he currently sucks.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> Play is not suggesting that Telfair be benched. He is merely pointing out that he currently sucks.


Then dont watch......


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> What I see -- night in and out -- is a kid that can't get the ball to the right man and can't break down a defense and pass.
> 
> Play.


What I see is a guy who is clearly among the quickest players in the league. A guy who CAN and DOES break down defenses with relative ease. I see 4 other guys who aren't used to playing with a player like that and often times they're left looking like ham-handed idiots by a pass that, when they've come to expect and anticipate it, will result in an easy bucket. Sure, he's had some ******* turnovers. But when his teammates get used to what he does, he'll get better by leaps and bounds and he WILL start to make his teammates better.

To say that Maurice Baker would be better out there is just laughable. 

As for the pass-first thing...who ever said he was a pass first point guard? I know I never thought he was.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Fork said:


> What I see is a guy who is clearly among the quickest players in the league. A guy who CAN and DOES break down defenses with relative ease. I see 4 other guys who aren't used to playing with a player like that and often times they're left looking like ham-handed idiots by a pass that, when they've come to expect and anticipate it, will result in an easy bucket. Sure, he's had some ******* turnovers. But when his teammates get used to what he does, he'll get better by leaps and bounds and he WILL start to make his teammates better.
> 
> To say that Maurice Baker would be better out there is just laughable.
> 
> As for the pass-first thing...who ever said he was a pass first point guard? I know I never thought he was.


 :clap: well said, my sentiments exactly.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

tlong said:


> Yes. Al Jefferson *IS * playing up to his draft position. Let's take a look at rookie statistics per 48 minutes played, shall we?
> 
> Point per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 2nd.
> Rbds per 48 minutes : Al Jefferson is 5th.
> ...


Ok, Telfair is top 5 in some meaningful PG categories...

FT%: 3rd
FTM per/48: 3rd
Assists: 2nd

Obviously he turns the ball over way too much, and that is a problem. I guess I'd be more worried if this wasn't a 19 year-old kid, out of high school, playing the toughest position in the NBA. 

I'm not sure comparing Jefferson and Telfair is any more fair than comparing Damon's assists numbers at SG to Telfair's at point. Let's compare his stats to the other true point gaurds to come directly out of high school. I can't think of any off my head outside of Livingston. 

Livingston, who was drafted much earlier is averaging 7+ apg/48 (same as Telfair), 4.5 TOpg/48 (0.5 less than Telfair), 60% FT (20% less than Telfair).

These high school kids struggle in their first year trying to run an NBA team, that should come as no surprise to anyone.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Tince said:


> Ok, Telfair is top 5 in some meaningful PG categories...
> 
> FT%: 3rd
> FTM per/48: 3rd
> ...



I think it is completely fair to compare Telfair against Jefferson since we passed on Jefferson when we picked. They are both straight out of high school as well.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> I think it is completely fair to compare Telfair against Jefferson since we passed on Jefferson when we picked. They are both straight out of high school as well.


The hate is strong in you tlong.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Fork said:


> The hate is strong in you tlong.


Wrong. I feel no hate towards Telfair. I just think he was a bad pick.


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

tlong said:


> Wrong. I feel no hate towards Telfair. I just think he was a bad pick.



I really don't, and that is not solely based upon my liking of Telfair. Say we picked Jefferson. Well, we still have Zach, so then next year we would be looking at Zach/SAR (Jefferson) Part II! And who knows how much playing time Al Jefferson would have gotten if he were behind Zach and SAR. With Damon packing his bags and Nick set to retire, we are in desperate need of a PG for next year. I think Telfair can be serviceable in the next couple of years, and I think he will be a very good player in the future. Drafting Jefferson would have been very similar to the Jermaine O'Neal situation a few years ago. Just too much of a logjam to unlock his talent here. As we see though, there is no logjam at the point guard position, so Telfair should have ample time to show if he has got "it" or not. And he may not, but he just might, but we will find out soon enough. At least we will know instead of having a rotting question mark of potential sitting on the bench.


PS... this post was in assumption that you would have rather taken Jefferson.

But either way, I feel that Telfair was a good pick up.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> No need to be an *******.


wasn't saying that to be consdescending. more of a pot shot at myself.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

tlong said:


> I think it is completely fair to compare Telfair against Jefferson since we passed on Jefferson when we picked. They are both straight out of high school as well.


It's a "fair" comparison once you can look back at both their careers. It's not a fair comparison in their rookie seasons, because point guards have more responsibility and a tougher job; therefore it is to be expected that they will have a more difficult learning curve early on.

Jefferson doesn't have to come out of high school and start making a lot of decisions on the fly in the NBA or lead an offense; Telfair does. A steeper learning curve will result in more mistakes early in development.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Rookie season, turnovers per 48 minutes.

Sebastian Telfair: 5.4
Isiah Thomas: 5.9

Telfair will never amount to anything!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Rookie season, turnovers per 48 minutes.
> 
> Sebastian Telfair: 5.4
> Isiah Thomas: 5.9
> ...



the pistons should've drafted buck williams.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

tlong said:


> I think it is completely fair to compare Telfair against Jefferson since we passed on Jefferson when we picked. They are both straight out of high school as well.


Considering Boston has no big men, and Portland was overloaded at the PF position, I don't think Jefferson would be putting up near the numbers. They also have a point gaurd who had 13+ years of experience, multiple all-star, who has proven he can make everyone around him better. Something you can't say about Damon or Telfair.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Fork said:


> Rookie season, turnovers per 48 minutes.
> 
> Sebastian Telfair: 5.4
> Isiah Thomas: 5.9
> ...


And Thomas had 3 years of NCAA experience to improve his game.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> the pistons should've drafted buck williams.


True dat!

And by the way, Magic Johnson averaged 5.1 turnovers per 48 minutes for his career! One year, he averaged 5.7 to/48! They were super lucky to win all those championships! Look where THAT pick got the Lakers. Nowhere! 

They should have drafted Jim Spanarkel!


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

A little comparison for those who want to see:

Age GMs PPG FGP FTP RPG APG TO
Stockton 22 82 5.6 .471 .736 1.3 5.1 150
Payton 22 82 7.2 .450 .711 3.0 6.4 180
TPorter 22 79 7.1 .474 .806 1.5 2.5 106
KJohnson 21 80 9.2 .461 .839 2.4 5.5 146
IThomas 20 72 17.0 .424 .704 2.9 7.8 299
CBillups 21 80 11.2 .374 .850 2.4 3.9 174

Telfair 19 48 4.9 .361 .803 1.1 2.2 73


I suggest we wait until another 30 games into next season to make such hard judgements about Telfair. It really isn't fair to judge him on the mop-up minutes he received prior to 5 games ago! It would be fun to fast-forward to 2 years from now and see how he stacks up with the likes of those listed.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Wow. 

I guess it is a GOOD thing to average more TOs in your rookie year.

I'm sure we couldn't find at least as many guys that averaged a high number of turnovers that amounted to jack or his buddy schmidt, because they all became HOF players.

What you all fail to point out is that those guys:
(A) Made those turnovers in a much more competitive league
(B) The majority of those guys were TRYING to make their teammates better

Comparing the way that Telfair approaches the game to the way Stockton or Magic approached it is LAUGHABLE at best and completely SAD. The approach of Telfair is closer to Damon or Iverson than any REAL PG.

Play.

PS - Hap, sorry I jumped on you about the comment. I thought you were making a dig at me. I apologize.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

OK folks, it is time to say it out loud. We all know where the real blame belongs.










Telfair's mother! She had to go and loaf around about getting preggo. If she had done it 2 years earlier, Bassy would be 21 and we would be past this stage! :fire:


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

cant everyone just agree its far to early to king him OR clown him.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

For a rookie out of high school, this board seems to mark him as superstar or flop. Let the boy get a year or two under his belt. He is playing the hardest position in the game. He also is way to up and down to say he will be great yet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Agree with the last two posts: it's too early to judge him as a player. He hasn't done anything to indicate he's a sure-fire superstar, but he also has showed enough to convince me that he's not going to be out of the league in a couple of seasons.

As far as where he was drafted and what other value might have been there: we'll wait and see. I think that one point that bolsters tlong's position (and, indeed, my own) is Nash's general inability to get things done as GM of the Blazers... I think that his failures overall point to his lack of ability as a GM and that indicates it is more likely that Nash reached for Telfair.

With that being said, Sebastian's a Blazer and I hope that he supercedes Przybilla as Nash's best acquisition at some point.

Ed O.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

It is definately too young to tell how he will do...but I think that he will definately be playing in the NBA for years to come. The guy is what...19? I'm that age and I'm just a sophomore in college. I can't imagine what it'd be like to go up against professional, superstar athletes on a daily basis. 

Lots of people think that the kid is special...and I certainly like what I have seen so far. If he sticks to being a gym rat, I don't see why he can't go on and succeed to be a great...or at least average PG in the game. 

His jumper will probably improve (sorta like Kidd...er yeah).

And I disagree with the first poster, as I don't think that Telfair is in any way like Damon. He's a real PG that looks to get his teammates involved. And Telfair actually has vision....their games are extremely different.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I come to bury Play., not to praise him.... or something like that. :biggrin: 

That said, reading the posts that initially started all this, I didn't see anything that made me think Play. actually hoped the Blazers would bench Telfair for Baker. The point he seemed to be making, if I read him correctly, was that *if* the goal were to win now, Baker would be a better choice than Telfair. I'm not sure I agree but I can certainly see that perspective -- Baker *does* seem to me to be thinking more exclusively about getting the ball out of his hands and to someone like SAR or Miles. And, that makes sense. He's somewhat out of his league (as it were) and is just trying to hang on. Telfair, otoh, knows he's "safe" (at least through this season and likely the next) and thus, has a little more freedom to work on things like finding his own shot amid all this. And, I'd sure love to see his assists total eclipse his FG attempts sometime soon, whatever the TOs might look like.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Baker *does* seem to me to be thinking more exclusively about getting the ball out of his hands and to someone like SAR or Miles. And, that makes sense.


I agree with the majority of your post, and I know this isn't your idea, so don't take it personal. 

My ideal point gaurd isn't one that just looks to pass. All the best passing point-guards in this league are respected as shooters. Baker doesn't want anything to do with a shot, so clearly he's not the solution. More importantly, that's what Telfair is missing (something we all know). So until we see if he can develope a jumper, I'm going to reserve judgement on his passing game.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I think it is ammusing to hear that Telfair won't improve on his jump shot. To me, it is quite evident that he has already improved from the beginning of the season. For those of you who don't see the improvement of Telfair's jumper from the beginning of the season and now, then wow. Just wow.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> That said, reading the posts that initially started all this, I didn't see anything that made me think Play. actually hoped the Blazers would bench Telfair for Baker. The point he seemed to be making, if I read him correctly, was that *if* the goal were to win now, Baker would be a better choice than Telfair.


That was my point, you read correctly. 

Hehe.

Play.


EDIT: Fix quote code


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> I think it is ammusing to hear that Telfair won't improve on his jump shot.


I don't think anyone said he wasn't going to improve his jumper.

I think it would be fairly stupid to suggest he wouldn't ever improve his jumper.

In fact, I think that is the one area he'll improve the most. The area I expect to see less improvement is in the area of passing and distributing.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

BlayZa said:


> cant everyone just agree its far to early to king him OR clown him.


I agree.

I think he'll eventually go on to be a good player. I don't see him being great. I see him just above mid-tier. But, that's pretty good for a 17th pick.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Perfection said:


> And I disagree with the first poster, as I don't think that Telfair is in any way like Damon. He's a real PG that looks to get his teammates involved. And Telfair actually has vision....their games are extremely different.


I haven't seen that aspect of his game.

I see him refusing to use pick and pops. I see him refusing to make entry passes. I see him refusing to do any of the basics to get the team moving.

Unless the ball is in transition, he's relatively stale.

His vision, to me, is subpar. I hope that it is because he is young and he is a rookie, but his vision is severely lacking at this point. 

Play.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I agree.
> 
> I think he'll eventually go on to be a good player. I don't see him being great. I see him just above mid-tier. But, that's pretty good for a 17th pick.
> 
> Play.


It's just too bad that we picked him at *#13.*


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I see a player that is 19 and learning on the run. It's not fair to say that we should play someone else if we want to win now. We weren't winning before. Why not say if we wanted to make the playoffs this year we should have never had SAR on the roster. I mean he's never been to the playoffs, so HE must be the reason we didn't make it. There are all kinds of stereotypes. As a starting PG Telfair is averaging 7 assists per game. That's pretty good considering that he and the rest of the makeshift line up we have is learning a new offense on the fly. His turnovers are WAY too high, but so were a lot of great PG's in their rookie year. 


Play you said,

"I think he'll eventually go on to be a good player. I don't see him being great. I see him just above mid-tier. But, that's pretty good for a 17th pick."

and this,

"His vision, to me, is subpar. I hope that it is because he is young and he is a rookie, but his vision is severely lacking at this point."

When most every announcer and "expert" raves about his court vision and ability to get the ball to the big guys when they need and want it.

You also think SAR plays like Tim Duncan, so maybe you should re-evaluate both and get back to us.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

What I would really like to know is why is anybody even paying attention to was Quick says on issues such as this. As a beat writer, I would look to read about issues going on with the team, not their opinion on the players out on the floor. Jason's opinion of the players and how well they play is worth no more then any of ours, the only difference is his gets printed in the paper.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Telfair was a good pick at his number. historically, guys drafted between 10 and 15 are more likely to be out of the league after five years than not. Telfair (barring injuries) will be a starting caliber NBA point guard for at least a decade. 

will he a Carlos Arroyo/Jason Williams/Damon Stoudamire type of guy, or will he be a Kidd/Nash/Baron Davis type of star? who knows. it's impossible to predict how much of a jumper he'll develop, how much he'll learn about running an NBA team, and how he'll overcome his loss of quickness as he ages.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

theWanker said:


> Telfair was a good pick at his number. historically, guys drafted between 10 and 15 are more likely to be out of the league after five years than not. Telfair (barring injuries) will be a starting caliber NBA point guard for at least a decade.
> 
> will he a Carlos Arroyo/Jason Williams/Damon Stoudamire type of guy, or will he be a Kidd/Nash/Baron Davis type of star? who knows. it's impossible to predict how much of a jumper he'll develop, how much he'll learn about running an NBA team, and how he'll overcome his loss of quickness as he ages.


This best represents my position as well. theWanker wins!

:banana: 

(After never using the dancing banana, I've been using it a disturbing amount lately.)


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I haven't seen that aspect of his game.
> 
> I see him refusing to use pick and pops. I see him refusing to make entry passes. I see him refusing to do any of the basics to get the team moving.
> 
> Play.


Time to put your crystal ball away.......


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I am trying to figure out the comments on Telfair :sad: 

What were you guys expectations? What PG looks good with the lineup he is working with? He looked better than I expected in EVERY game I have seen him in as a Trailblazer.

However, my guess is with the Blazers you guys will draft another PG this summer just for turmoil. :clown:


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

> When most every announcer and "expert" raves about his court vision and ability to get the ball to the big guys when they need and want it.


Okay, wait - did the announcers take some sort of magic basketball knowledge course? 

Last I checked most of them are overweight goofballs.

It's amazing that he's doing that, yet we aren't scoring much in the half court. Go figure. 

He gets most of his assists on plays where he just defers to Stoudamire and he jacks it up or Miles on the break.



> You also think SAR plays like Tim Duncan, so maybe you should re-evaluate both and get back to us.


Actually, I think Reef is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan, while Tim is better defensively.

Most people hold their games as similar, it isn't just me.

Sorry.

Play.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Time to put your crystal ball away.......


Huh?


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> He gets most of his assists on plays where he just defers to Stoudamire and he jacks it up or Miles on the break.


While this is true to some extent, he gets a fair amount of assists by getting past his man, drawing a big from down low, and then dumping the ball to his man. I can recall this happening several times to Pryzbilla. And some of his turnovers come from quick unexpected passes which the Pryzs and Ratliffs on our team have trouble catching. While these are good passes, he also needs to learn what types of passes you can throw to different players. This will come with time and experience.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay, wait - did the announcers take some sort of magic basketball knowledge course?
> 
> Last I checked most of them are overweight goofballs.
> 
> ...


actually, you are one of the only people that i have seen that put tim duncan and reef in the same phrase. but, i may be wrong i only go out so much. but, from what i've heard and read, reef is hardly mentioned at all. 



> He gets most of his assists on plays where he just defers to Stoudamire and he jacks it up or Miles on the break.


and that is just bullocks. you really have only those visions? to leave it at that is a very slim view of his play. yes the most memorable are those plays where he dishes to the "shooting" guard, which damon plays, or miles the high flying small forward, i don't see either as bad.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Actually, I think Reef is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan...
> 
> Play.


Better at free throw shooting, yes. Everything else, no.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Actually, I think Reef is a better offensive player than Tim Duncan...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay, wait - did the announcers take some sort of magic basketball knowledge course?
> 
> Last I checked most of them are overweight goofballs.
> 
> ...



If you think Reef is better than Duncan offensively then are truly dilusional.


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

DrewFix said:


> actually, you are one of the only people that i have seen that put tim duncan and reef in the same phrase. but, i may be wrong i only go out so much. but, from what i've heard and read, reef is hardly mentioned at all.


Go read the thread here. I wasn't the one that initiated the comparison.

Play.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Fork said:


> Better at free throw shooting, yes. Everything else, no.


I don't think it's that simple, though I completely agree that Duncan is the better player, no question. However, I think SAR is clearly the better 3 point shooter (and probably the better shooter generally outside of 5 feet from the basket). I would also guess that, while neither would do so very well at it, I'd rather have SAR than Duncan defending a three like Peja or Artest. 

-S


----------



## Playmaker0017 (Feb 13, 2004)

Fork said:


> Better at free throw shooting, yes. Everything else, no.


Okay - 

Can Duncan hit a 3?

Can Duncan hit a 12 footer consistantly?

Duncan is good, no doubt. But, Reef is a superior offensive scorer. Not by a large margin, but he is more talented in that respect. 

Play.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay -
> 
> Can Duncan hit a 3?
> 
> ...


I'll agree with you about the first two points, Play. However, I'd say that Duncan's inside game more than makes up for his relative lack of outside game.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay -
> 
> Can Duncan hit a 3?
> 
> ...



He might have more offensive weapons (same with Rasheed) but he's not a "superior" offensive scorer.

No one, outside of those who are blatant homers for a certain player, believes that.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay -
> 
> Can Duncan hit a 3?
> 
> ...


:raised_ey

I've actually seen Duncan hit a 3. So yes, he can. Maybe not at the same percentage as Shareef, if that's what you're getting at.


----------



## kaydow (Apr 6, 2004)

Duncan's Career: 22.6ppg, 50.8% FG
SAR's Career: 19.9 ppg, 46.8% FG

Question: you need a bucket at the end of the game, who would you rather
have take that shot - TD or SAR? 

I love ya Play, but I'm backing TD.


----------



## BBALLSCIENCES (Oct 16, 2004)

Playmaker0017 said:


> I haven't seen that aspect of his game.
> 
> I see him refusing to use pick and pops. I see him refusing to make entry passes. I see him refusing to do any of the basics to get the team moving.
> 
> ...


That's simply not true. It's clear that you're so jaded that you don't even recognize what you're looking at.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Playmaker0017 said:


> Okay -
> 
> Can Duncan hit a 3?
> 
> ...


Points per game or more importantly points per shot: advantage Duncan. That's pretty much all that matters. Who cares if all he does is dunk the ball...he's been doing it for years and he has a couple championship rings to show for it.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It is simple...Duncan is capable of making a bad team good, and Shareef is not. That's just a flat out fact. :banana:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Shareef might be a better outside shooter, but Tim's inside play changes the game - similar to Shaq.

Then there's the other half of the game, where Tim is one of the best in the league and Shareef is average.

Just doesn't seem worthy of comparing and it makes you look silly for going off on other posters for making similar comparisons with their favorite players. You can't have it both ways...

You can't be a total homer for one player and then act holier than thou for other posters for doing the same.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Playmaker,

Telfair = NBA Championship........

Shareef = Lottery year after year........


END OF DISCUSSION!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Playmaker,
> 
> Telfair = NBA Championship........
> 
> ...



hm..did you mean Duncan = NBA championship?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> hm..did you mean Duncan = NBA championship?


No, I'm just trying to get under his skin, like he gets under ours(at least mine).....


----------



## stupendous (Feb 17, 2003)

Must have!... lol, END OF DISCUSSION!

But i hope you are right about Telfair bringing us a championship zagsfan!


----------

