# Forward ordered out of practice?



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I just heard on Channel 8 a forward was ordered out of practice? I'm guessing Miles, but who knows.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Actually, I'm getting news that it was Randolph. Could be wrong though.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mgb said:


> I just heard on Channel 8 a forward was ordered out of practice? I'm guessing Miles, but who knows.


I was wrong, it was Zach.

When other players stood up for them Nate pulled everyone off the court and had a 20 min meeting with them.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Ah, the first victim of the new dress code, no doubt.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> Actually, I'm getting news that it was Randolph. Could be wrong though.


Your right, it was Zach. I guess I shouldn't jump to conclusions.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

They said Zach said something Nate didn't like. They were talking about everyone having to work hard no matter who you are in regards to this. It's going to be in the Oregonian so we should see it online soon.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> I was wrong, it was Zach.
> 
> When other players stood up for them Nate pulled everyone off the court and had a 20 min meeting with them.


Stood up for whom? I guess I'll know more tomorrow morning.

This is pretty interesting, though.

Ed O.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

Interesting....wonder what irked Nate so much....

@ least he is letting them know who's boss---here in Sonics camp, Fortson is letting Weiss know who's boss---& it ain't Weiss.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Stood up for whom? I guess I'll know more tomorrow morning.
> 
> This is pretty interesting, though.
> 
> Ed O.


Sorry, that should have been him, Zach.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

Nate is the MAN!


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Man I love that coaching style. Players are going to start having to act professional.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Y'all are assuming Nate is going to win the war. Coaches don't necessarily win. In fact, I don't think their winning percentage is all that good. Nate might have won this battle, but it's a long season.

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hopefully it was nothing much......I'm thinking it was just a case of Nate showing the players that he won't take any of their crap this year and that he's the boss....It also helps when you have a "The Enforcer" on your side as well...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> Actually, I'm getting news that it was Randolph. Could be wrong though.


Where are you getting this info?....I'm searching the net and can't find anything...


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

thank god i wsa hopeing it wasnt miles no bad news so far hope it stays like that and he makes the all star game if he gets his act in gear.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Nate Bishop? Were you at practice today? What do you know and when did you know it? 

barfo


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

Lets not get to worked up over this. It could be something pretty small, zach could have been 
having a bad day, nothing to see here folks.. This is why portland is such a crappy place to play
for the players. Every lil thing that happens gets reported to the news and makes our players 
look bad. This type of thing happens on all teams, just nobody knows about it on other teams..


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

MercyKersey said:


> Lets not get to worked up over this. It could be something pretty small, zach could have been
> having a bad day, nothing to see here folks.. This is why portland is such a crappy place to play
> for the players. Every lil thing that happens gets reported to the news and makes our players
> look bad. This type of thing happens on all teams, just nobody knows about it on other teams..


I'm sure this happens on other teams and it's reported as well, but like this it's just locally so we don't notice. Now if it keeps going it may eventually reach nationally. Of course being a one pro team town does mean the team is more under a maginfying glass than a team that has other pro teams.

But I do agree with you this is probably something small. I sure hope so. We'll find out soon enough.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

on CSMN they said Nate was unhappy with the whole team being lazy


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Here's the whole story.

Part of the story:



> It started after a drill in which the Blazers were split into three five-player teams to run plays against one another. The winning team got to sit out as the two others ran sprints. As the players ran, something McMillan heard from Randolph upset the coach, who then swore and angrily ordered the power forward off the court, pointing to the training room that leads into the locker room.


and



> Several players tried to exhort Randolph to run hard and stay in practice, then McMillan pulled the entire team off the court and into the locker room. They remained there for about 20 minutes before McMillan emerged and downplayed the incident.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> McMillan wouldn't specify what caused him to react the way he did, but it wasn't the first time he was unhappy with Randolph since practice started two weeks ago.
> 
> Last Wednesday, McMillan pulled Randolph out of the starting lineup for the team's exhibition opener against Seattle for being late.


I posted a thread a few days ago posing the question, "Will Zach be a problem this year?" Looks like it's already happening.

I predict more fireworks, and more recriminations, and a bunch of griping by the players before all is said and done. In the end, McMillan will win and non-cooperative players will be shipped out. 

The reason is simple. McMillan is the new sheriff in town. His mission is to clean up the team and reshape the image of the franchise. Everything he is doing is toward that end. McMillan also has a 6-year contract. He's not going anywhere.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I was not at practice yesterday, but I will see what I can dig up tonight. 

I don't know if I would get too worked up over this. Obviously it's not good when Zach gets tossed out of practice, but I don't think it was necessarily something that warranted being tossed. I simply think Nate is showing the team he will not tolerate laziness, and Zach was made an example.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> I don't think it was necessarily something that warranted being tossed. I simply think Nate is showing the team he will not tolerate laziness.


Laziness is a perfectly legitimate reason for getting tossed. However, you need to take another look at the story. It was an inappropriate comment that caused Zach's ejection.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> and non-cooperative players will be shipped out.



good luck shipping zach anywhere


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> good luck shipping zach anywhere


Randolph is one of the best young power forwards in the NBA. If he is healthy (and it appears that he is), there will be no lack of suitors for his services.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Y'all are assuming Nate is going to win the war. Coaches don't necessarily win. In fact, I don't think their winning percentage is all that good. Nate might have won this battle, but it's a long season.


Agreed. Cheeks "won" a lot of battles (against Wells, Miles, etc.) but look where it got him: ****-canned midway through a season. Although he got a nice gig in Philly, if he clashes with players repeatedly there, too, he might be on the outside looking in at an NBA head coaching job for a long time.

It's Nate's team. He has to run it how he thinks best. Whether it was a wise move to clash with one of your few above-average players is a question that will be answered over time. At this point, I don't know whether Zach was being lazy or is out of shape because he's trying to come back from pretty significant injury or there's something else going on.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Randolph is one of the best young power forwards in the NBA. If he is healthy (and it appears that he is), there will be no lack of suitors for his services.


Hrm... what evidence is there that he's healthy? He's not playing many minutes in preseason, and he didn't even start the first game. Now he's getting kicked out of practice because of difficulty with conditioning drills.

His physical condition, plus his massive contract (which has limitations on how it can be traded), plus whatever damage is done to his rep by Nate riding him hard enough to force a trade (if that came to pass) would seem to really impact what we'd be able to get for him.

Not to mention he's the only 4 we have on the team currently and for the foreseeable future...

Ed O.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

From Canzano's blog on the topic:



> I'm not one of those cats who likes to point out a problem without offering a solution . . . .


huh? :whofarted


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Cheeks "won" a lot of battles (against Wells, Miles, etc.) but look where it got him: ****-canned midway through a season.


But it was the last season of his contract, if I'm not mistaken. McMillan is at the beginning of a 6-year contract, and the players know it. The Blazers are going to let him run it his way for at least 3 seasons, in my opinion.



> Whether it was a wise move to clash with one of your few above-average players is a question that will be answered over time.


Whether it was a wise move for Randolph to mouth off to his new coach will also be answered over time.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Talk about a battle. If it was Nate v. any other player, I say Nate wins. But this is a potential battle between the franchise player and Nate. Usually the franchise player wins, but it is clear Allen is bringing in a coach who he wants to run the show. 

I hope this all blows over, but if it doesn't, this is a huge clash. I just don't see Zach as a player who will always listen to Nate and react the way Nate wants him too. Zach has a history including pouting and voicing his displeasure. It's funny because Zach says all the right things to the press, but then acts out. I wonder if it is something Zach can even control.

How nice it would be if this one incident changes Zach and this was the end of it, but I'm more concerned about Zach than Miles.

One last thing, how Zach reacts to this incident will be watched by the young players on the team.

Is it still too late to keep Reef and trade Zach? : )


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> But it was the last season of his contract, if I'm not mistaken. McMillan is at the beginning of a 6-year contract, and the players know it. The Blazers are going to let him run it his way for *at least 3 seasons.*


This is a good point. Having the extra time is critical to letting Nate work the team over.

I'm not sure it matters, though. Without good players, a team simply cannot win, and the Blazers have precious few of them. If (and that's a massive "if" at this point, of course) alienates his good players and/or forces Portland to give them away (as Cheeks had a hand in with Wells) the team is going to be historically bad and the Blazers would be insane to keep Nate for his full contracted tenure in that case.

Of course, this is really a SINGLE clash with a SINGLE player. Whether it (along with the headband ban, of course) is enough to bring the team into line or whether it's the first in a series of issues with multiple players isn't clear.



> Whether it was a wise move for Randolph to mouth off to his new coach will also be answered over time.


Zach's paid one way or the other. He's not getting fired, and the team owes him tens of millions of dollars. If he gets benched as the team is bad at a franchise level, I can almost guarantee you that people won't blame HIM... 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Is it still too late to keep Reef and trade Zach? : )


I just jumped in my time machine and went back to the summer before last, to tell Nash to read all of our posts about keeping our options open with Zach and SAR... to NOT extend Zach until we can get value for one or the other.

Unfortunately, Nash was working on other business. Something about Ratliff's contract.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Hrm... what evidence is there that he's healthy?


In one of the preseason games he scored a flurry of points on quick moves around the basket. That, to me, shows that his legs and knees are in pretty good shape. I've also read reports that suggest he is rounding into shape. Jay Jenson, the Portland trainer, has said that they tested Zach's knees rigorously during the summer, and they passed all the tests with flying colors. Zach is not yet in 100% physical shape, but it appears that his injuries have healed since the surgery. 



> He's not playing many minutes in preseason, and he didn't even start the first game.


Give me a break. He was held out of the starting lineup because of disciplinary reasons, not health reasons.



> Now he's getting kicked out of practice because of difficulty with conditioning drills.


You're making a lot of assumptions. Maybe Zach just didn't want to run as hard, or fast, or long as McMillan wanted him to. Maybe it has nothing to do with his health or his conditioning, and everything to do with his attitude. We don't know from the published story whether he was having "difficulty" with conditioning drills. We only know that he made a remark that McMillan deemed unacceptable.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> In one of the preseason games he scored a flurry of points on quick moves around the basket. That, to me, shows that his legs and knees are in pretty good shape. I've also read reports that suggest he is rounding into shape. Jay Jenson, the Portland trainer, has said that they tested Zach's knees rigorously during the summer, and they passed all the tests with flying colors. Zach is not yet in 100% physical shape, but it appears that his injuries have healed since the surgery.


Oh, once again the Blazers' word is taken as gospel. For some reason, I don't think that other NBA teams are quite so naive. If he gets limited or no opportunity to show he's in fine health, other teams aren't going to think that he is just because the Blazers say so.

I could have sworn that I just read Cheeks wished Zach would have tested his knee before the season started. I might be hallucinating, though, and I don't have time to search for a link.



> Give me a break. He was held out of the starting lineup because of disciplinary reasons, not health reasons.


Was he? Did the Blazers say that, too?

And was he limited to 19 minutes against Denver because of disciplinary action, as well?



> You're making a lot of assumptions. Maybe Zach just didn't want to run as hard, or fast, or long as McMillan wanted him to. Maybe it has nothing to do with his health or his conditioning, and everything to do with his attitude. We don't know from the published story whether he was having "difficulty" with conditioning drills. We only know that he made a remark that McMillan deemed unacceptable.


No, we know that the comments were made during a conditioning drill. Ergo, he was having difficulties with a conditioning drill. We don't know whether he just was being grumpy or his knee was bothering him or what.

Ed O.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

myELFboy said:


> Interesting....wonder what irked Nate so much....
> 
> @ least he is letting them know who's boss---here in Sonics camp, Fortson is letting Weiss know who's boss---& it ain't Weiss.



This could be a telling post. Elfboy is an avid sonic fan but finds the act of kicking Zach out of practice interesting. I read into this that this is not a usual technique of Nate, which is cause for more concern. Is that true elfboy?

But I think the biggest part of this story is how Zach reacts in practice. If he pouts, it sends a bad message to the kids and puts Nate to the challenge early. However, if he works hard and respects the coach, this might actually be a good thing. How's that for a twist . . .


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

There is no real reason why Zach should even be pushed to play a lot of minutes either... starting or not!

Preaseason is a time for experimenting. A time for many things.... pushing your best player to an exhausting amount of minutes after only 6 months after knee surgery is not one of the things that may be necessary.

Bring him along slowly IMHO... always moving forward and improve

No one that I recall so far has explained any amount of minutes about any player yet... so lets not speculate why they were held out unless we know for sure


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Trader Bob said:


> No one that I recall so far has explained any amount of minutes about any player yet... so lets not speculate why they were held out unless we know for sure


If we knew for sure, we wouldn't be speculating.

And if we didn't speculate, there's wouldn't be a lot to talk about on this board.

I disagree with you that preseason is a time for experimentation. It's a time to get the team ready for the regular season. Part of that, of course, is experimentation, but part of it is to get guys who are coming off of injuries ready to play from day 1 of the regular season.

I'm not saying that Zach should be playing more--or even that I would like to see that. His dearth of minutes in the first two games, as I see it, stands in stark contrast to the team's position that his knee is entirely healthy.

Ed O.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Ed O said:


> If we knew for sure, we wouldn't be speculating.
> 
> His dearth of minutes in the first two games, as I see it, stands in stark contrast to the team's position that his knee is entirely healthy.
> 
> Ed O.


Or that Zack is out of game shape and that may be why Nate wanted him to run harder. Could be why he is only getting limited game time. Not working hard enough in practice?

gatorpops


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

hope this isint a regular occurence with zach.having attitude problems


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Geez, Talkhard. Nate overheard Zach make a comment while running sprints, and decided to make an example out of him. Don't be so happy. :biggrin: I'm not so sure it's proof that Zach will be "a problem this year." It's all part of the process.

I believe you played football in a previous life? Didn't some of the testosterone driven bunch on your team gripe once in a while about doing conditioning drills or running sprints (especially the linemen)? Boys will be boys and men will be men. 

It sounds like Nate handled a minor indescretion with a heavy hand. I'm giving Nate my full support that nipping anything that resembles insubordination in the bud at first bloom is a good way to go with this team.

Maybe in time one or more of our players will revolt. Maybe it will be Zach. Maybe no one will. I'm hoping no one will, but I fully expect these guys to chaffe at authority once in a while. That's normal. It's what they do afterward, when the coach puts them back in line, that's important. So far so good.

Let's drink to a successful learning experience, by Zach and the rest of the team, out of this teaching opportunity.

:cheers:


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

This strikes me as a simple case of Zach being Zach and Nate trying to make a statement. Much ado over nothing, IMHO.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Geez, Talkhard. Nate overheard Zach make a comment while running sprints, and decided to make an example out of him. Don't be so happy. :biggrin: I'm not so sure it's proof that Zach will be "a problem this year." It's all part of the process.
> 
> I believe you played football in a previous life? Didn't some of the testosterone driven bunch on your team gripe once in a while about doing conditioning drills or running sprints (especially the linemen)? Boys will be boys and men will be men.
> 
> ...


Good post.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> No, we know that the comments were made during a conditioning drill. Ergo, he was having difficulties with a conditioning drill.


Your logic is absurd. Just because a guy makes a comment during a conditioning drill doesn't mean he was having difficulties with it. It may just mean he didn't want to do the drill, and was unhappy about being pushed by the coach.

Good grief, Ed, weren't you a lawyer at one point? If you used this kind of deductive reasoning in your legal cases, I can't imagine the outcome was favorable to your client.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Your logic is absurd. Just because a guy makes a comment during a conditioning drill doesn't mean he was having difficulties with it. It may just mean he didn't want to do the drill, and was unhappy about being pushed by the coach.


No doubt. My statement (that he was having difficulties with a conditioning drill) includes that possibility. I don't know how you can argue with that.

I didn't say that his knee injury prevented him from completing the conditioning drill. I didn't even say that his knee injury prevented him from going full speed. I just stated that he hasn't played many minutes and he's having trouble with conditioning drills... and that the evidence of him being 100% healthy is scant.



> Good grief, Ed, weren't you a lawyer at one point? If you used this kind of deductive reasoning in your legal cases, I can't imagine the outcome was favorable to your client.


I'm not using deductive reasoning, because it's not applicable here. Deduction is going from the general to the specific, while induction is going from the specific to the general.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> My statement (that he was having difficulties with a conditioning drill) includes that possibility. I don't know how you can argue with that.


Sorry, but "having difficulties" suggests that Zach was finding it physically difficult to do the drill. That may or may not have been the case. We just don't know. 



> I'm not using deductive reasoning, because it's not applicable here.


Fine. Then your inductive reasoning was faulty.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I think there will be some major trades coming maybe soon maybe not but I dont think nate is too happy about this team.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> I think there will be some major trades coming maybe soon maybe not but I dont think nate is too happy about this team.


Why? Because he YELLED at a player in practice? Just because Cheeks never (or rarely) did that, doesn't mean this is a big deal at all. 

Zach got out of line and Nate corrected him. Not a big deal.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

I've said it before and will say it again, Zach is a thug that has an attitude bigger than his I.Q. Zach being traded might actually be the best thing to ever happen to Portland this year if it comes down to that. We should have kept SAR and gotten rid of Zach before some jerk off signed Zach to that huge contract extension. Huge mistake!

So far in Zach's very short life he's had trouble with carrying guns as a teen, hanging out with Woods at dog fighting events, sucker punching Patterson in practice and that's away from hoops. On the court he can't pass out of a double nor get his teamates involved once it goes to him in the low post. He's a poor mans Charles Barkley with no team vision.

Telfair, Jack, Webster, Joel, Dixon and Blake are good kids, this team doesn't need another Sheed with half the talent. Put Zach on a bus and focus the offense on Telfair, Webster and Joel.

I imagine Zach popped off to Nate under his breath and the rest followed.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

i never new that zach did all that stuff it makes me sad i thought i team might be doing good again and gotten rid of all the jailblazers people.we should play a few games and make major trade involning zach theo ruben frye penny lee and a pick


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Zach being traded might actually be the best thing to ever happen to Portland this year


I tend to agree. I don't think Randolph or Miles really belong on this team. They both have piss-poor attitudes and out-of-control egos.



> So far in Zach's very short life he's had trouble with carrying guns as a teen, hanging out with Woods at dog fighting events, sucker punching Patterson in practice and that's away from hoops.


He also walked into a bar with his brother who was carrying a loaded gun. After his brother shot a couple of guys, Zach proceeded to lie about it to the police, twice.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

Maybe we could trade Zach for Rahim. =) LOL.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

hearing all these posts just fuels me anger more toward zach trade him theo patterson and juan or charles for penny lee frye and 1st round pick or cash or brewer


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Wow you guys are really overreacting. It's not a big deal at all, that's what happens in a basketball team. Doesn't the same stuff happens in a family? Yes. Chill out, this is why nobody wants to play for the Blazers, because our fans overreact when something insignificant happens. You guys crack me up.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Good post.


Co-Signed. A voice of reason, what a rarity!


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Paxil said:


> Maybe we could trade Zach for Rahim. =) LOL.


You saw what happened when he started over Zach, it wasn't a good time. Zach > SAR and I like SAR, but Zach is just a much better player.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Fork said:


> Why? Because he YELLED at a player in practice? Just because Cheeks never (or rarely) did that, doesn't mean this is a big deal at all.
> 
> Zach got out of line and Nate corrected him. Not a big deal.



I hope it is that easy. But I don't know if he actually yelled at Zach. What he did was kick Zach out of practice. Kicking him out after apparently having issues with Zach prior to this. That appears to be a bigger deal than his daily yelling at Travis. A more heavy handed correction on the franchise player.

I guess I don't see how a confrontation between the two should be brushed off as a nothing incident. Imagine if Garrnett, Kobe, Labron, Duncan, T-Mac or the like got kicked out of practice. In a big media market ESPN would be all over it. 

I guess what gets me with all this is it is my belief that being a franchise player also brings with it a duty of leadership of the team. It is a big deal when the leader of the team gets into a public dispute with the coach to the point of getting kicked out of practice. 

(My hope would be it was someone else getting kicked out of practice and Zach having a talk with that player.)


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

if zach did all that he should be traded.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Hrm... what evidence is there that he's healthy? He's not playing many minutes in preseason, and he didn't even start the first game.
> 
> Ed O.


Retracted


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I guess I don't see how a confrontation between the two should be brushed off as a nothing incident. Imagine if Garrnett, Kobe, Labron, Duncan, T-Mac or the like got kicked out of practice. In a big media market ESPN would be all over it.


Garnett put a gash over his teammates eye in practice, he punched him in the face and barely anything was said. Media didn't jump all over that, because they can pick and choose. This thing is getting way out of hand how we have to jump all over a player because of something that happened that we really have no knowledge about.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> It's not a big deal at all, that's what happens in a basketball team.


Really? I don't remember Clyde Drexler getting kicked out of any practices. Same goes for Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, Kiki Vandeweghe, Fat Lever, Steve Kerr, Lloyd Neal, Larry Steele, Bobby Gross, Bill Walton, Lionel Hollins, Dave Twardzik, Herm Gilliam, and a host of other Blazers. None of those guys ever got kicked out of practice as far as I know. 

Is it just possible that a lot of today's players don't have a good work ethic?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> Garnett put a gash over his teammates eye in practice, he punched him in the face and barely anything was said. Media didn't jump all over that, because they can pick and choose. This thing is getting way out of hand how we have to jump all over a player because of something that happened that we really have no knowledge about.



I remebered when that happened. ESPN reported that over several days. I don't think ESPN has done a report on this. So far there has been one Oregonian article on this event.

I don't know, but I'm guessing if you checked the Minny message board during that incident, there was plenty of discussion about it. Right now this is the latest article on the Blazers, and IF there is serious tension between Nate and Zach, it would be a big deal, so it is something to talk about. Tomorrow's topic will probably be the Blazer/Clipper game . . . unless Zach doesn't play. : )

It sounds like you don't think Zach is someone to worry about? I hope your right, but I wouldn't put money on it.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Is it just possible that a lot of today's players don't have a good work ethic?


Is it just possible the media didn't bother reporting something that trivial back then?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

neither would i hope zach gets his act together i surely wouldnt miss him.several people have reported that zach was high at the mall and was swearing.hope thats nit true but its very possible because of the things zach has previously done.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Really? I don't remember Clyde Drexler getting kicked out of any practices. Same goes for Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, Kiki Vandeweghe, Fat Lever, Steve Kerr, Lloyd Neal, Larry Steele, Bobby Gross, Bill Walton, Lionel Hollins, Dave Twardzik, Herm Gilliam, and a host of other Blazers. None of those guys ever got kicked out of practice as far as I know.


Jerome was in trouble for sexual relations with under age girls in Utah. Why are we picking on Zach when at least a few players you listed had some problems. We all know Bill Walton fried his brain with all the acid he did. 




> Is it just possible that a lot of today's players don't have a good work ethic?


Quite possible, but I think players these days are expected to do much more than players of the past. Also, considering Zach just came off a serious surgery I wouldn't doubt if he was trying to go easy on himself. Not an excuse, but I think I would be a little more lenient on a guy who just had a very serious surgery than other players who did not.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

alot of blazers or former blazers and any other nba players have dirty little secrets just like some of the posters on this board.zach has a way too huge contract to be acting with a attitude we should have kep sar and ditched him.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

> neither would i hope zach gets his act together i surely wouldnt miss him.several people have reported that zach was high at the mall and was swearing.hope thats nit true but its very possible because of the things zach has previously done.


So much for rumors.
Actually one person reported that Zach was high and swearing. He contacted Nash or Patterson, can't remember which and we heard nothing further. When he was asked how he knew Zach was high he got very upset that we were questioning his integrity (which no one did, just wondering how someone can tell at a distance). But now it is several people and it is "possible" because of unnamed things Zach has previously done.

BTW, Clyde was known as a coach killer when Mike Schuler was coach.



> Jerome was in trouble for sexual relations with under age girls in Utah


No, they were over the age of consent. The trouble was that it was an ugly scene (4 players, 2 young women) and that the young women, confronted by panicky parents, started naming everyone on the team including Coach Adelman. 

See what I mean by rumors?


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

crandc said:


> No, they were over the age of consent. The trouble was that it was an ugly scene (4 players, 2 young women) and that the young women, confronted by panicky parents, started naming everyone on the team including Coach Adelman.


Not to mention players who weren't on the roster that year.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Maybe it's just possible that Zach's a thug and you need to call a thug a thug!

Fact: He suckered punched Patterson
Fact: Has had problems with guns and drugs and been around people/family who didn't have a problem shooting at another person!!!!!
Fact: He was with Q at many of the dog fighting events Q hosted.

Correct me if I'm wrong but that looks and smells like a thug maybe we should call it what it is.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

YardApe said:


> Maybe it's just possible that Zach's a thug and you need to call a thug a thug!
> 
> Fact: He was with Q at many of the dog fighting events Q hosted.


So, I'm guessing you were also "at many of the dog fighting events Q hosted?" Or perhaps you heard this from some "thug" friends who attended "many of the dog fighting events Q hosted?"

Just curious how you know this as a fact?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

YardApe said:


> Maybe it's just possible that Zach's a thug and you need to call a thug a thug!


Because its _possible_, you should call him a thug? Is KG a thug? He punched a teammate. Is Jordan a thug? He did too. 

As for guns, well it was his brother. Not him. So while he may be guilty of poor judgement, that does not make him a "thug". Drugs? Has he been caught with any drugs? I only recall a single DUI a couple years ago. The dog allegation.. proof?

What exactly is a thug, by your definition? I'm curious now.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

I mean that Nate will change the make up of the team to better fit his style I think any of the bigs are up on the market save for HA. 

Some of the Zbo haters have jumped on this and been banging thier cages like anger chimps that need to cool down.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Really? I don't remember Clyde Drexler getting kicked out of any practices. Same goes for Terry Porter, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, Kiki Vandeweghe, Fat Lever, Steve Kerr, Lloyd Neal, Larry Steele, Bobby Gross, Bill Walton, Lionel Hollins, Dave Twardzik, Herm Gilliam, and a host of other Blazers. None of those guys ever got kicked out of practice as far as I know.
> 
> Is it just possible that a lot of today's players don't have a good work ethic?


I do remember Clyde Drexler SKIPPING practices tho.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think we are blowing this a bit out of proportion,,,,just a little. 

I doubt much will come of this, but does anyone think Zach will start tonite? I bet he does. At least it should make for a interesting game. I'll be there and I'll try to take more pics and maybe even a movie or two.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Trade Zach? :rotf: 

You guys crack me up. Wasn't there's another thread in here where folks were lamenting that the Blazers are going to suck for years? Well, trading Zach sure would help us in that direction. Trading off your best young players is a good way to keep your team in the crapper. Ask the Bulls.

So Zach mouthed off, big deal. It's because he's a spoiled athlete that probably didn't have a lot of guidance growing up. Nate is there to bring that to these guys. Let's see if it works.

And oh yeah, shoulda kept Reef. Now there's a guy known for bringing young teams out of the abyss. 

Molehill------->Mountain.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> Because its _possible_, you should call him a thug? Is KG a thug? He punched a teammate. Is Jordan a thug? He did too.
> 
> As for guns, well it was his brother. Not him. So while he may be guilty of poor judgement, that does not make him a "thug". Drugs? Has he been caught with any drugs? I only recall a single DUI a couple years ago. The dog allegation.. proof?
> 
> What exactly is a thug, by your definition? I'm curious now.


I don't even think it was a DUI! If I remember right it was six weeks before his twenty first birthday, he'd had a beer or two at a party, he got pulled over because his car matched the description of another vehicle the police were looking for at the time, and when they asked he was honest that he'd had a beer (he was not drunk) and he was underage. Wasn't it something like minor in possession or open container? Other than that not much to see. 

He did try to help his brother by not making a statement after the shooting but I think there are a lot of people who would want to protect a sibling. It was a bad decision but he did turn around and cooperation within a few days of the incident. Admittedly Zach grew up in a rough neighborhood and isn't always the most polished but I'm not ready to write him off as hopeless thug.

I don't question Zach's work ethic, everything we've read about his recovery has told us Zach has been doing everything he could to come back stronger. 

I bet it was a matter of Zach being tired, having an off day (which we all have), mouthing off a little and Nate comes out with a strong statement that this won't be tolerated. Nate is basically demanding respect. I bet it was just a minor blip and not worth the attention it's getting. I'm going to withhold judgement that we're doomed for the time being.


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

What's my definition of a thug? Someone who walks around stoned and oblivious in a shopping mall, sucker punches teamates, bets on dog fights and carries a gun. What the hell do you call a thug?

Oh that's right Q was alone at these dog fights? Who was Q's best friend on the team? Didn't Q also have a little drug issue too?

Guess all this is make believe! 

Zach is a saint we all have it wrong.


Get a clue dude.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

YardApe said:


> What's my definition of a thug? Someone who walks around stoned and oblivious in a shopping mall, sucker punches teamates, bets on dog fights and carries a gun. What the hell do you call a thug?


Proof of all this please? We had one single person claim he was stoned in the only incident I know of that you could be referring to. I've seen no proof that he bet on dog fights or carried a gun ever.

So all you've got so far is him punching a teammate. Again, I ask. Are KG and MJ thugs?


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

if zach only punched a guy on his team and thats all he did then hes fine in my book and ill say sorry for gettings on a bandwagon but if he did those other things he should leave.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

YardApe said:


> What's my definition of a thug? Someone who walks around stoned and oblivious in a shopping mall


Holy crap, the city is full of thugs!

I've never known a thug who was a stoner, or a stoner who was a thug. But maybe I don't get out enough.

barfo


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Foulzilla said:


> Proof of all this please? We had one single person claim he was stoned in the only incident I know of that you could be referring to. I've seen no proof that he bet on dog fights or carried a gun ever.
> 
> So all you've got so far is him punching a teammate. Again, I ask. Are KG and MJ thugs?


I was going to say the same thing but figured it was useless to argue. 

There is no proof Zach was stoned at the mall or attending or betting on dog fights. Millions of people in this country own guns so I'm not sure how anyone can condemn Zach for that. And can any of us say we didn't have a single friend in highschool or college who smoked pot?!? Come on, you can't assume Zach was just because he hung around Q.

Granted I wouldn't be surprised to find out he lit up a doobie or two in his time but none of us have any proof of that. And, not to get political but, who cares if he did!!!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

"Zach Randolph of the Portland Trail Blazers might face a criminal charge for misleading police officers investigating the shooting of three men on a nightclub dancefloor, a prosecutor said Monday. 
The NBA forward's brother, Roger Randolph, 22, faces preliminary charges of criminal recklessness for the Sunday shootings. 

Madison County prosecutor Rodney Cummings said Zach Randolph told investigators he did not know who fired the shots, but other witnesses said he held his brother while Roger Randolph fired a gun.

"I think there's a good chance Zach Randolph will be charged with a crime as well," Cummings told the Associated Press. "I would certainly say he's being investigated for false informing or assisting a criminal."


I've blogged on Zach Randolf before:

Zach Randolph, this season's emerging star, doesn't have a spotless history...he broke Ruben Patterson's eye socket in a practice scuffle last season. Now he's been caught driving under the influence (heavy marijuana smell in the car) without an Oregon license (though at least he had one from Indiana), and no proof of insurance (though he evidently does have insurance). 
...and from a now-dead Oregonian link I referenced in that same post:

This is the first legal trouble Randolph has faced since the Blazers drafted him with the 19th overall pick in 2000. However, while he attended high school in Marion, Ind., Randolph served 30 days in juvenile detention for shoplifting, 30 days house arrest for battery and 30 days in juvenile detention for possession of stolen property -- guns -- one of which he sold. 
In September, he pleaded guilty to underage drinking from a May 2002 incident in Marion."






I am not advocating trading him. But should there not be a little concern that this is the franchize player and that maybe Zach's personality might conflict with Nate's personality. It's funny that the management that has gone on the reocrd as saying they are dedicated to character signed Zach to a close to max contract.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

it doesnt set a good example for all his fans if he comes out in public stoned theyres no proof but it would be sad if it was true he was stoned at the mall.if he had a gun then yeah that would be ok unless he committed a crime,lended someone the gun to do anything against the law.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Zach brings a whole new meaning to "run and gun"

Sorry I couldn't resist


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I've blogged on Zach Randolf before:
> 
> Zach Randolph, this season's emerging star, doesn't have a spotless history...he broke Ruben Patterson's eye socket in a practice scuffle last season. Now he's been caught driving under the influence (heavy marijuana smell in the car) without an Oregon license (though at least he had one from Indiana), and no proof of insurance (though he evidently does have insurance).
> ...and from a now-dead Oregonian link I referenced in that same post:
> ...


I may be so conditioned to defending Portland player's "transgressions" I'm not objective about it anymore but... I don't think the fight with Ruben wasn't that unusual, mix a heated practice and two Alpha males... it's easy to see how this could happen. The juvenile stuff was a long time ago and shouldn't be held against him now just like most juvenile crimes. I don't know very many people who didn't have a beer before they turned 21. And, I think it's natural to want to protect your brother even when your brother is not a good guy. 

He may conflict with Nate but I'm not ready to give up on Zach. He seems to be trying to grow up and be as professional as he can. He's had some slip ups but hasn't repeated them (unlike some of our more mature players... <cough> Damon <cough>). I want to wait and see what Nate can do with him, he might be the difference between Zach the journeyman and Zach the team leader.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Zach brings a whole new meaning to "run and gun"
> 
> Sorry I couldn't resist


Okay, that's it! As they say on Nanny 911... "Go sit on the naught chair!"


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I won't call Zach a thug given the on going debate about the defintion of a thug. But is it fair to say Zach is a theif and a liar? But more importantly to Blazer fans (wherever they may be), he is a heck of a basketball player. If Nate turns him around, all the more power to the both of them. If Nate doesn't turn him around it's OK . . . as long as he gives 20/20 each game. That's my feeling. 

I personally don't care what he does as long as he doesn't corrupt the young players.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

who cares if hes a thug, if he doesnt shoot anyone, keeps to himself with whatever weed he might smoke and stops peddaling stolen items let him be. he had insurence he just didnt have proof, oh well he forgot to put it into one of his 100 cars. Okay he did get a DUI but i bet there have been many of you who have driven while intoxicated over the legal limit. I doubt that anyone on this board is a saint. To play basketball Zach doesnt have to be a saint he just has to stay out of trouble, which so far during his NBA career he has


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

So if Zach stands by and watches his brother blast at somebody that's okay? If he's not caught betting on dog fighting but was there that's okay? If he doesn't carry a gun but sells them illegally that okay? If he sucker punches a team mate and breaks his eye socket that's okay? Don't recal MJ ever breaking a teamates eye socket or KG for that matter. As long as he's not driving a car down your block stoned it's okay? Is that what we should assume?


Maybe the real question should be what is you guys definition of a thug? Seems mine is a bit conservative, guess you don't get enough street cred without trigger time in the Rose City. Maybe his a Baby Thug? :whoknows:


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

and to think we had Shareef Abdur-Rahim who was an all-star once and nearly a 20-9 career stat...


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

YardApe said:


> So if Zach stands by and watches his brother blast at somebody that's okay? If he's not caught betting on dog fighting but was there that's okay? If he doesn't carry a gun but sells them illegally that okay? If he sucker punches a team mate and breaks his eye socket that's okay? Don't recal MJ ever breaking a teamates eye socket or KG for that matter. As long as he's not driving a car down your block stoned it's okay? Is that what we should assume?


He stood by and watched his brother blast someone? Proof?
He was at the dog fights? Proof?
He still sells guns illegally? Proof?
It's ok to attack teammates as long as you don't do too much damage? Really?
He drove his car stoned? Proof?

Our justice system is innocent until proven guilty. I'm not asking you to like him, I just think you need to stop spreading rumors about him. He's no saint, but he's also not some thug.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

:boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: 

Some folks collect stamps.......or build ships in bottles.......and some people look for things to go on self-righteous rants about. I am so glad this board is here to indulge their hobby.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

In case anyone cares Zach did start.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

From Canzano's blog:



> I talked privately with Zach Randolph after the game. He said McMillan is calling his number plenty during the games, but his knee still isn't 100 percent. It's just not right yet. Period.


Ed O.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

That sounds like it's not so much his conditioning then. Hmm, I hope playing on it won't make it worst. I'd rather see him not playiing than losing him for the season. But it'll probably just take time.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

After reading his blog I wonder if maybe it's just Zach doesn't trust his knee yet.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> After reading his blog I wonder if maybe it's just Zach doesn't trust his knee yet.


I think that's a definite possibility. I haven't had a serious knee injury myself, but from what I've read about them even after a player is 100% physically, they aren't as effective because they don't trust the knee... hopefully that's where Zach is and hopefully he can get back to the point where he just plays basketball and doesn't think about his knee at all.

Ed O.


----------

