# Post your top 4



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Post your top four players. Not how you think they'll be drafted, but how you have those players rated.

*1) Tyrus Thomas* - A rare player who can change games from the defensive side of the ball. Unmatched basketball instincts, great college production and tons of potential on top of that. And not potential as in Travis Outlaw, potential as in Bill Russell.
*2) Adam Morrison* - A passionate on the floor leader who actually wants to play basketball. That's a drastic change of scenery from anything seen in a Blazers forward in a long time.
*3) Rudy Gay* - Tons of talent and more potential to grow, but lacks the proven leadership and passion for the game both Thomas and Morrison have shown in abundance. 
*4) Andrea Bargnini* - The play of Nowitzki sure isn't hurting Bargnini's chancs of being selected #1.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

1. Bargnani
2. Gay
3. Morrison
4. Thomas

Stepping Razor


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

1. Andrea Bargnani
2. Rudy Gay
3. LaMarcus Aldridge
4. Adam Morrison


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

1. Bargnani
2. Morrison
3. Aldridge
4. Gay


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

1. Bargnani
2. Aldridge
3. Gay
4. Morrison


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> 1. Andrea Bargnani
> 2. Rudy Gay
> 3. LaMarcus Aldridge
> 4. Adam Morrison


Agreed.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

1- Bargnani
2- Aldridge
3- Roy
4- Morrison

I simply don't understand the love for a SF/PF tweener who has not proven himself against top level comp (eg. The NCAA tournament). Gay should stay in school for another year to prove himself and be "The Man" like Morrison and Roy have.

Bargnani has proven the ability to score and is pretty athletic for a 7 footer. Aldridge has an excellent inside game already, can rebound and defend and should continue to improve.

Gay has great tools, but has not proven the desire to dominate, even on the college level. Is that what warrant a top 4 pick? I'm not convinced.

Any Gay lovers out there :biggrin: who can convince me that Gay is worth it?


----------



## RickRoss (May 24, 2006)

I like how not one person has Roy in their top 4, and he is not a position need for this team, yet some of you want us to draft him with our pick. Anyways, my top 4:

1) Morrison
2) Bargniani
3) Aldridge
4) Sheldon Williams


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> I simply don't understand the love for a SF/PF tweener who has not proven himself against top level comp (eg. The NCAA tournament).


Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, LeBron James, etc, did not prove themselves against "top competition" (as you define it). If you eliminate players that are basically educated guesses about being very talented, you lose out on a lot of potential superstars.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

RickRoss said:


> I like how not one person has Roy in their top 4, and he is not a position need for this team, yet some of you want us to draft him with our pick.


I like how everyone seems to hold the same opinion, which of course makes that opinion correct. Groupthink is a wonderful thing. 

Too bad that in basketball, players can play multiple positions, and it just kind of destroys your argument that Roy is not the right player for this team, remember 1984? The draft, not the book.

Roy is a playmaking 2 along the lines of a Ginobili/Wade/Carter/Pierce/Hughes. No one else in the draft gives you what Roy does, which is why he will be a great pro.

Martell can easily slide over to the 3, which is why you call players at 6'6"-6'9" swingmen, they swing between two positions. Versatility improves your team and is why championship teams need guys who can play multiple positions.

Bashing my opinion of Roy does not support why Gay is good for the Blazers. Oh yeah, he's got a 40" vertical, that makes him a perennial all-star!


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Bashing my opinion of Roy does not support why Gay is good for the Blazers. Oh yeah, he's got a 40" vertical, that makes him a perennial all-star!


Why stop there when you can add a lot more attributes that would make Gay a better selection?

My top 4 for this draft not taking account for team needs:

1. Aldridge
2. Gay
3. Morrison
4. Bargnani


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Tracy McGrady, LeBron James, etc, did not prove themselves against "top competition" (as you define it). If you eliminate players that are basically educated guesses about being very talented, you lose out on a lot of potential superstars.


Looking for the next Garnett/McGrady/Kobe in Rudy Gay is going to leave you very disappointed. That's the kind of thinking that got the Blazers Travis Outlaw instead of Josh Howard. Gay and Rodney Carney are in the same zone as Darius Miles and Travis Outlaw, great athletes who are not great basketball players.

KG/Kobe/TMac and Lebron were dead locks to become great pros. An unproven player is the last thing this Blazer team needs now. The pick needs to be able to produce, or the franchise could be in for a five year plus stretch in the lottery.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> I like how everyone seems to hold the same opinion, which of course makes that opinion correct. Groupthink is a wonderful thing.
> 
> Too bad that in basketball, players can play multiple positions, and it just kind of destroys your argument that Roy is not the right player for this team, remember 1984? The draft, not the book.
> 
> Roy is a playmaking 2 along the lines of a Ginobili/Wade/Carter/Pierce/Hughes. No one else in the draft gives you what Roy does, which is why he will be a great pro.


so...bashing your opinion of roy does not support why gay is good for the blazers, but making a extremely generous comparison to the 5 of the best SG's in the league isn't just a taaaad over board?

if he's "along the lnies of" those guys, why does his comparison put him at Jalen Rose? Jalen in his best days wishes he was as good as Pierce is, or Carter..or Wade. 

and somehow I doubt that if Carter, Wade or Pierce were on the Huskies that they would've taken a back seat to a guy who was 5'9".



> Martell can easily slide over to the 3, which is why you call players at 6'6"-6'9" swingmen, they swing between two positions. Versatility improves your team and is why championship teams need guys who can play multiple positions.
> 
> Bashing my opinion of Roy does not support why Gay is good for the Blazers. Oh yeah, he's got a 40" vertical, that makes him a perennial all-star!


I'm no fan of Rudy, and I know that Zagsfan basically drove 80% of the people who don't like Morrison in that direction..but sheesh..you're making me yearn for Playermaker to return and spout off how sainty Shareef was.


----------



## RickRoss (May 24, 2006)

I think Blazer Maven is really Brandon Roy himself, or maybe a family member


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Looking for the next Garnett/McGrady/Kobe in Rudy Gay is going to leave you very disappointed.


but looking for the next Wade, Ginobili, Pierce, Hughes or Carter in Roy isn't??

Roy is nothing at all like any of those players.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Looking for the next Garnett/McGrady/Kobe in Rudy Gay is going to leave you very disappointed.


I'm not looking for that. My point was that limiting yourself to players "proven in the NCAA tournament" is an unnecessary and damaging decision, because it leaves out a pool of talented players.



> Gay and Rodney Carney are in the same zone as Darius Miles and Travis Outlaw, great athletes who are not great basketball players.


Outlaw was seen by scouts as an athlete who still needed to learn basketball. The Blazers selected him eyes wide open. Gay is not seen that way by scouts. He's seen as a very skilled, versatile basketball player with a ton of talent and athleticism. Leading a veteran and talented UConn team in scoring only validated that opinion. Travis Outlaw could never have done that at the same age.



> An unproven player is the last thing this Blazer team needs now. The pick needs to be able to produce


What an untalented team like the Blazers need most is the best talent possible. They're going nowhere in 2006-07, so compromising on talent to select a more "NBA-ready" player (even that is debateable, as Gay dominated Roy in stretches) would be the biggest mistake.

Roy was nowhere near as good as Gay at the same age, so chances are he's a lesser talent.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> but looking for the next Wade, Ginobili, Pierce, Hughes or Carter in Roy isn't??
> 
> Roy is nothing at all like any of those players.


His production indicates that's exactly what he is like. He scores efficiently, defends the opponent's top player, rebounds well and is the guy with the ball in his hands at the end of the game. He scores, boards and collects assists, he produces from the 2 like D. Miles could and should at the 3, but sadly doesn't.

That's what this team is lacking. 

I have debated Zagsfan20 about Morrison at length, but all I seem to get here is:

Why not Roy?

Because Roy sucks dude!

Why do you think that?

Uuhh, because he's Brandon Roy! :biggrin:


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I'm not looking for that. My point was that limiting yourself to players "proven in the NCAA tournament" is an unnecessary and damaging decision, because it leaves out a pool of talented players.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Roy improved greatly from his Soph to Sr year, Gay regressed from Soph to Jr.

Gay was scoring against UW while Roy was off the floor. He never dominated Roy head to head.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> His production indicates that's exactly what he is like. He scores efficiently, defends the opponent's top player,



so wait...


he defends the opponents top scorer...but morrison torched him for 40+?

but wait..jones was defending morrison that game...so..he doesn't defend the top scorer?



> rebounds well and is the guy with the ball in his hands at the end of the game. He scores, boards and collects assists, he produces from the 2 like D. Miles could and should at the 3, but sadly doesn't.
> 
> That's what this team is lacking.
> 
> ...


well, he's had 3 years of so-so play, and then 1 year of good play...and he was beat out (for shots, etc) by a guy who was 8 inches shorter.

but I guess if he's going to have a lebron james type rookie season...


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

> Outlaw was seen by scouts as an athlete who still needed to learn basketball. The Blazers selected him eyes wide open. Gay is not seen that way by scouts. He's seen as a very skilled, versatile basketball player with a ton of talent and athleticism.


I agree, in fact the contrasts extend even beyond their skill levels.

Outlaw is a one-dimensional athlete, he can jump and that's about it. I've never been at all impressed by his coordination, or speed. Gay on the other hand is not only a great leaper, but is also quite explosive, and very agile with the ball around the basket.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Gay regressed from Soph to Jr.


Incorrect. I assume you mean regressed from freshman to sophomore, since he's only been in college for two seasons. However, he didn't. The only thing that regressed for Gay was his three-point shooting. He still scored more (on the same points per shot), rebounded more and generated more assists. Gay clearly improved.



> Gay was scoring against UW while Roy was off the floor. He never dominated Roy head to head.


He absolutely dominated Roy head-to-head for a stretch of their matchup. There was nothing Roy could do to slow him down.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Aldridge (I think his college numbers were down because of foul trouble + playing next to another 9+ rebounder)
Morrison (Offense and emotion I love; defense will be good enough.)
Bargnani (nice (not great) shot. drives hard, rebounds soso, blocks some)
Gay


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> Incorrect. I assume you mean regressed from freshman to sophomore, since he's only been in college for two seasons. However, he didn't. The only thing that regressed for Gay was his three-point shooting. He still scored more (on the same points per shot), rebounded more and generated more assists. Gay clearly improved.
> 
> 
> 
> He absolutely dominated Roy head-to-head for a stretch of their matchup. There was nothing Roy could do to slow him down.


Gay scored 10 pts the entire game, 6 while Roy was on the bench. He hit a nice runner in the lane and a short hook against Roy, far from dominating.

Roy scored 21, and drove past Gay several times to score or set up his teammates. I have the tape to review, if necessary.

Gay regressed in 3 pt shooting, which is a key element for a SF, his rebounding, while playing SF and PF, was nearly equal to Roy's from the SG position and Roy nearly doubled Gay in assists.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> so wait...
> 
> 
> he defends the opponents top scorer...but morrison torched him for 40+?
> ...


Roy typically defended the opponent's top scorer, but he didn't spend much time on Morrison in the Gonzaga game. Lorenzo Romar's decision, not mine. 

Nate doesn't pass to anyone regardless of who they are, Marbury, Eddy Curry, etc. so I don't think that should destroy anyone's opinion of Roy.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Gay regressed in 3 pt shooting which is a key element for a SF


Already stipulated and you're clearly overrating that element since it's the only thing Gay regressed in. Many great small forwards have been streaky from the three point line, as Gay has been in college. 



> his rebounding, while playing SF and PF, was nearly equal to Roy's from the SG position and Roy nearly doubled Gay in assists.


Roy is two years older and played on a less-talented team. If he weren't producing more, he'd be no factor in the draft at all.

The fact of the matter is that nobody credible considers Roy a top-four pick, talent-wise. The only people who are picking Roy to go at #4 are people thinking that the Blazers will pick need over talent. If the Blazers do that, it'll be a significant reach and the Blazers will likely be the worse for it.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I've got two lists. One for Rookie of the Year (spelled out to elliminate confusion with Brandon Roy) voting and one for how I think they'll do Long term.

Rookie of the year:
1. Morrison
2. Aldridge
3. Brandon Roy
4. Marcus Williams

Long term:
1. Bargnani
2. Morrison
3. Tyrus Thomas
4. Rudy Gay


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Aldridge, Morrison, Bargani, Gay. 

I can't decide which I think is best but I think Aldridge probably is the safest bet at #1. I think Morrison might be something really special. I've soured a little on Bargnani. Nash didn't give him a great endorsement, but maybe that's because he hoped he'd drop to us though it probably doesn't matter to him any more.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Based on blazer needs

1. Aldridge We need a big. If Joel walks we're screwed.
2. Bargnani 7 footer with talent.
3. Gay Talented all round player.
4. Morrison Will give us 20 pts per night and give up 25.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

For Portland:
1. Aldridge - Need a talented big man besides Randolph (did I really just say Zach was a talented big man?)
2. Gay - Signals the end of Darius Miles for sure
3. Morrison - Great PR and signals the end of Miles
4. Roy - Upgrade at SG, no more playing a small backcourt

I am not sold on Bargnani at all.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

How I rank them

1. Morrison
2. Bargnani
3. Aldridge
4. Roy

Note: This is NOT the order in which I believe they will be drafted.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy typically defended the opponent's top scorer, but he didn't spend much time on Morrison in the Gonzaga game. Lorenzo Romar's decision, not mine.
> 
> Nate doesn't pass to anyone regardless of who they are, Marbury, Eddy Curry, etc. so I don't think that should destroy anyone's opinion of Roy.


He didn't spend much time on Morrison because Adam was torching him and it was causing Roy to foul him as a consequence of trying to tighten up his defense on him...Which then led to Bobby Jones to come in and he got lit up by him as well...Roy only played 21 minutes in that game.

So no, it wasn't Romar's decision.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Based on blazer needs
> 
> 1. Aldridge We need a big. If Joel walks we're screwed.
> 2. Bargnani 7 footer with talent.
> ...


I don't know about the Morrison part....

but, I think you could edit the Aldridge part and enter in there, "We need another injury ridden big guy, who scores single-digit points and doesn't even show effort to score in games against cream-puff teams like Baylor and Missouri." Oh, and not to mention that he's an averaged size PF, I'm not sure how he'd be filling Joel's shoes...

But other than that, he's still a better prospect than Noah.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

1. Bargnani
2. morrison.
3. aldridge
4. gay


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

Most likely to be all-stars

1) Aldridge
2) Baganini
3) Rudy Gay
4) Thomas

Most likely to be rookie of the year

1) Rudy Gay
2) Morrison
3) Roy
4) Marcus


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

deanwoof said:


> 4. Roy - Upgrade at SG, no more playing a small backcourt


How does going from a 6'7 SG to a 6'5 SG improve the size of the backcourt?

I think Roy is probably a PG at the next level anyway.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy typically defended the opponent's top scorer, but he didn't spend much time on Morrison in the Gonzaga game. Lorenzo Romar's decision, not mine.
> *
> Nate doesn't pass to anyone regardless of who they are, Marbury, Eddy Curry, etc. so I don't think that should destroy anyone's opinion of Roy.*



what does Nate in the NBA have to do with Nate at UW, where he was ahead of Roy on the short chart?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I don't know about the Morrison part....
> 
> but, I think you could edit the Aldridge part and enter in there, "We need another injury ridden big guy, who scores single-digit points and doesn't even show effort to score in games against cream-puff teams like Baylor and Missouri." Oh, and not to mention that he's an averaged size PF, I'm not sure how he'd be filling Joel's shoes...
> 
> But other than that, he's still a better prospect than Noah.


 zags, if we lose Joel then Aldridge would be the tallest player on our team. 6'11" is not average size for a PF. Aldridge is capable of making a mid range jumpshot. That could cause opposing centers to come out of the paint and guard him which would free up Zach to score more.... less double team pressure.
Do you think Theo is capable of manning the center position for a full year? He's been having trouble making it through a full month.
The blazers biggest need is an active center that can score, defend, rebound and pass to the open man. Aldrige is the best big man in this draft. He isn't perfect, just the best big man prospect in draft without a surefire star.
You're dead wrong about Noah, there's something special about him. 6'11, athletic, super active, no injury history, super shot blocker, defensive minded, rebounds very well, likes physical contact, hard working, coachable, good attitude, guard skills, a motor that's off the charts, scores well.... AND he's the tourney MVP as a sophmore. You can't argue with results.

Oh, I forgot one more thing. The bigger the game, the better he plays. Scoreboard, baby.


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

SMiLE said:


> what does Nate in the NBA have to do with Nate at UW, where he was ahead of Roy on the short chart?


That is exactly what I was wondering. And considering the fact that Nate went 21st last year, when he was projected as a high second rounder, goes to show how weak a draft this is on paper. picking Roy at 4 would be a terrible mistake.

Anyways, my order for top prospects in this year's draft are:

1) Rudy Gay 
2) Tyrus Thomas
3) Andrea Barganani
4) Adam Morrison


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

1) Andrea Bargnani- Easily the most talented player with the highest ceiling.
2) Rudy Gay- Best player on a team with 5-7 1st round potential picks. 
3) LaMarcus Aldridge- We need a big, but im not sure if e is tough enough.
4) Adam Morrison- Game wont translate as well to NBA, but he will at least be a poor mans Glen Robinson.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> 1) Andrea Bargnani- Easily the most talented player with the highest ceiling.
> 2) Rudy Gay- Best player on a team with 5-7 1st round potential picks.
> 3) LaMarcus Aldridge- We need a big, but im not sure if e is tough enough.
> 4) Adam Morrison- Game wont translate as well to NBA, but he will at least be a poor mans Glen Robinson.



interesting that Bargnanis' game, which seems to be no different than Morrisons, is the "most talented player with the highest ceiling"...yet Morrisons game won't translate as well to the NBA, and will be a "poor mans Glenn Robinson" .

I guess being constantly doubled, and having to create your own shots don't translate "as well" to the NBA as not being doubled as much and the mythical "european" tag does.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> interesting that Bargnanis' game, which seems to be no different than Morrisons


He's bigger, more athletic and a superior passer. There are significant differences in them as prospective NBA players. Bargnani slashes better, will be able to get his shot off better against bigger opponents (something that Morrison wasn't much tested on in the small college game) and can make plays for his teammates better.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> He's bigger, more athletic and a superior passer.


he's taller (by what, 3 inches? woopeee) and not significantly more athletic. Neither one is terribly athletic. same with passing. 

btw, unless I read the stats wrong, he averaged .5 assists a game. Is that right? 



> There are significant differences in them as prospective NBA players. Bargnani slashes better, will be able to get his shot off better against bigger opponents (something that Morrison wasn't much tested on in the small college game) and can make plays for his teammates better.


I know that people always trumpet out how the league he plays in is the "2nd best", but the difference between it and college isn't that significant, that it means that the minor things he does better are ten fold better in the NBA. He wasn't seeing double (and sometimes) triple teams constantly (and still scoring huge #'s), and he wasn't the main guy for the other teams to concentrate on.

and it wasn't because he was "in the 2nd best league in the world" horse ****.

If he's so much better, why isn't he a clear cut #1 then? Because it's not like Gay or Aldridge are clear cut better than Morrison (they're not) and they're clear cut #1..

the differences between the two isn't as wide (if at all) as people claim. And it's not because "Adams that damn good", it's because Bargnani ISN'T that much better.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Not taking needs into account my top 4 players long term 

1. Gay
2. Aldridge
3a. Bargnani
3b. Morrison

My top 4 Blazer draft hopefulls 

1. Aldridge
2a Morrsion
2b Gay
3 Bargnani


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> what does Nate in the NBA have to do with Nate at UW, where he was ahead of Roy on the short chart?


Well, I guess all players were at some point playing behind an inferior player at some time during their careers. Jordan played behind someone, Clyde played behind Paxson, etc.

Nate is not a player who helps others, he only helps himself. That is something that was apparent at UW and with the Knicks last year.

Roy obviously worked in his game and improved greatly from Jr to Sr year. Why hold that improvement against him?

Oh, I get it, he played behind a 5'7" PG as a Jr, so that's proof that Roy sucks! Nice logic!


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Blazed said:


> How does going from a 6'7 SG to a 6'5 SG improve the size of the backcourt?
> 
> I think Roy is probably a PG at the next level anyway.


Because, Martell wasn't our SG last year, Juan Dixon (6'1") was. Starting Roy over Dixon gives you more height.

Martell played some SG and some SF and is unlikely to start in 05-06.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Well, I guess all players were at some point playing behind an inferior player at some time during their careers. Jordan played behind someone, Clyde played behind Paxson, etc.


Clyde played behind Jim because Jim was an all star and Drexler was a rookie. 

Roy played behind Robinson because he's not enough better than him to get those shots.

Plus, in college it's slightly different than the NBA. 

you're comparing, again, apples to oranges here.


> Nate is not a player who helps others, he only helps himself. That is something that was apparent at UW and with the Knicks last year.
> 
> Roy obviously worked in his game and improved greatly from Jr to Sr year. Why hold that improvement against him?


no one is holding his improvement against him. we're holding the fact that his improvement isn't enough to justify the praise you're heaping on him.



> Oh, I get it, he played behind a 5'7" PG as a Jr, so that's proof that Roy sucks! Nice logic!


never said the guy sucked, you're just trying to make a new argument out of what i said, because you can't counter the one I (and others) have made.

he's not going to have one of the best rookie seasons in NBA history, especially considering he's really only high in the draft because people heard Nate McMillan say he liked him and they ran with it.

are you honestly this high on him, or are you just doing this to act like zagsfan when he goes off on morrison?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Because, Martell wasn't our SG last year, Juan Dixon (6'1") was. Starting Roy over Dixon gives you more height.
> 
> Martell played some SG and some SF and is unlikely to start in 05-06.


so nate saying that he see's Martell as the SG is just talk?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> he's taller (by what, 3 inches? woopeee)


Three inches is a large size difference.



> and not significantly more athletic. Neither one is terribly athletic. same with passing.


We'll have to disagree. Bargnani appeared considerably more explosive, both in first step and in leaping ability.



> If he's so much better, why isn't he a clear cut #1 then?


Because people disagree on his potential. People have disagreed greatly on the potential of most players who didn't play in the NCAA, whether it's Europeans or high schoolers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Three inches is a large size difference.
> 
> 
> 
> We'll have to disagree. Bargnani appeared considerably more explosive, both in first step and in leaping ability.


well, that 3 inches in height obviously is why his leaping ability seems more explosive..


> Because people disagree on his potential. People have disagreed greatly on the potential of most players who didn't play in the NCAA, whether it's Europeans or high schoolers.


I dont think they're significantly different, that morrisons game won't transfer "as well" to the nba, but bargnani's will, to the piont where he has the highest ceiling and most potential.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Three inches in height.... does anyone know what the difference is in their arm length? Reach? I've heard Barganani can block a few shots. Can't say I've seen or heard of Ammo's shot blocking prowess.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I think Rudy Gay is probably the best player in this draft...

I would go with

1) Gay
2) Morrison
3) Bargnani
4) Aldridge


----------



## Toxicity (Jul 21, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Three inches in height.... does anyone know what the difference is in their arm length? Reach? I've heard Barganani can block a few shots. Can't say I've seen or heard of Ammo's shot blocking prowess.


I don't know about Morrison but Bargnani finished 1st in shots blocked in Italian League and 7th in Euroleague... has long arms and i compare him to Gasol in that.


----------



## BlazeTop (Jan 22, 2004)

1-Adam Morrison
2-Andrea Bargiani
3-Rudy Gay
4-Tyrus Thomas


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Last time I checked, Juan Dixon is 6'3". Although two extra inches doesn't make him less of a wraith. He's just one of those guys that isn't going to get any bigger no matter how much work he might put in the weight room.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Andrea is significantly different than Adam. Andrea is a decent shot blocker, and could probably block a shot per game his rookie season. He is also much more explosive and a far superior rebounder than Adam, which says alot because Andrea is only an average rebounder to begin with. Adam is a shooter, Andrea is player.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

graybeard said:


> zags, if we lose Joel then Aldridge would be the tallest player on our team. 6'11" is not average size for a PF. Aldridge is capable of making a mid range jumpshot. That could cause opposing centers to come out of the paint and guard him which would free up Zach to score more.... less double team pressure.
> Do you think Theo is capable of manning the center position for a full year? He's been having trouble making it through a full month.
> The blazers biggest need is an active center that can score, defend, rebound and pass to the open man. Aldrige is the best big man in this draft. He isn't perfect, just the best big man prospect in draft without a surefire star.
> You're dead wrong about Noah, there's something special about him. 6'11, athletic, super active, no injury history, super shot blocker, defensive minded, rebounds very well, likes physical contact, hard working, coachable, good attitude, guard skills, a motor that's off the charts, scores well.... AND he's the tourney MVP as a sophmore. You can't argue with results.
> ...


Everywhere I've read Aldridge is 6'10"....

But I'm not sure what you're smoking on the Noah thing, but you can pass it this way because I'm just not seeing it...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

graybeard said:


> Three inches in height.... does anyone know what the difference is in their arm length? Reach? I've heard Barganani can block a few shots. Can't say I've seen or heard of Ammo's shot blocking prowess.


Since when do you draft a SF based on whether they block shots or not....

Do you disregard a point guards playmaking ability, because he's a poor rebounder?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Andrea is significantly different than Adam. Andrea is a decent shot blocker, and could probably block a shot per game his rookie season. He is also much more explosive and a far superior rebounder than Adam, which says alot because Andrea is only an average rebounder to begin with. Adam is a shooter, Andrea is player.


Those highlight clips have brainwashed ya, buddy.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Zagsfan, who are you top four? I'm pretty sure I know who number 1 is, but who are 2-4?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

1. Adam Morrison
2. Andrea Bargnani
3. Patrick O'Bryant
4. LaMarcus Aldridge


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> 3. Patrick O'Bryant


Interesting. I'd love to see us pick him up with a later lotto pick if we can get one. 

Scoring with the first pick, rebounding with the 2nd pick.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Fork said:


> Interesting. I'd love to see us pick him up with a later lotto pick if we can get one.
> 
> Scoring with the first pick, rebounding with the 2nd pick.


I agree with you on both points. O'Bryant is number five or six on my list.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> I agree with you on both points. O'Bryant is number five or six on my list.


 I'm curious what ranks him so high in your eyes? I don't know much about him, but he sounds like a project.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Tince said:


> I'm curious what ranks him so high in your eyes? I don't know much about him, but he sounds like a project.


I'm sure he is, but he's a big project.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

1. Morrison
2. Thomas
3. Gay
4. Roy/Trade down

Assuming Bargnani is gone, if he isn't, move him to #3.

Does anyone even use the draft watch stickied thread anymore? What's the point of it being stickied if it's not going to be used?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I also think I could very easily replace Aldridge as #4 on that list and replace him with Rodney Carney...I think Carney will be a Richard Jefferson type player in the league...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

gambitnut said:


> I'm sure he is, but he's a big project.


 So it's just his size that you really like? I'm not trying to attack your view, but since I know very little about him, I'd like to know why people are high on him.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

gambitnut said:


> I'm sure he is, but he's a big project.


Lol those guys are 1 in 10 type risks. How many good 7 footers do we have in this league?


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

Tince said:


> So it's just his size that you really like? I'm not trying to attack your view, but since I know very little about him, I'd like to know why people are high on him.


That's the number one thing, I think just about everybody in this draft is a project to some extent, so I'd rather take a chance on a big man. The other thing is, we need defense and rebounding as well as shooting, and it sounds like O'Bryant is much less of a project on the defensive end than on the offensive end. We can use our first pick to get scoring.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

1. Morrison
2. Aldridge
3. Gay
4. Roy (better than Thomas overall by far)


----------



## QRICH (Feb 2, 2004)

1) Morrison

2) Aldridge

3) Roy

4) Gay


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I also think I could very easily replace Aldridge as #4 on that list and replace him with Rodney Carney...I think Carney will be a Richard Jefferson type player in the league...


Carney and Gay suffer the same problem: loads of athleticism without the determination to become dominant players. Carney looks like Richard Jefferson at times, then begins to float and look like George Jefferson.

Carney is more of a crapshoot than Gay, but could develop under the right coach who would make him work and get the most out of his immense talent.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> Clyde played behind Jim because Jim was an all star and Drexler was a rookie.
> 
> Roy played behind Robinson because he's not enough better than him to get those shots.
> 
> ...


Roy is top 5 material because of what he can do on the floor, which is Wade/Hughes/Pierce/Carter type production. I'm not saying he will be a flat-out star, but he has a better chance of getting the 16/4/4 production than Gay is. I think he can hit 18/5/5 at some point during his NBA career.

20/5/4 in 05-06 and a very good showing in the NCAA tournament got Roy where he is, not any alleged bias on my part. He also shot a FG%, which is what this team needs in a SG.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

1: Gay
2: Bargnani
3: Aldridge
4: Morrison


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy is top 5 material because of what he can do on the floor, which is Wade/Hughes/Pierce/Carter type production. I'm not saying he will be a flat-out star, but he has a better chance of getting the 16/4/4 production than Gay is. I think he can hit 18/5/5 at some point during his NBA career.
> 
> 20/5/4 in 05-06 and a very good showing in the NCAA tournament got Roy where he is, not any alleged bias on my part. He also shot a FG%, which is what this team needs in a SG.



I'd still rather have what morrison (or gay) can get us in the long run, because I think it'll be higher than 18 5 and 5.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'd still rather have what morrison (or gay) can get us in the long run, because I think it'll be higher than 18 5 and 5.


Maven is dreaming about Roy averaging that...He may hit that for a season...anything...I guess...is possible...but chances are much greater he never reaches that level...


----------



## Justinmoney85 (Apr 10, 2006)

talent

1. Gay
2. Bargnani
3. Morrison
4. Roy

my draft board

1. Morrison
2. Gay
3. Aldridge
4. Roy


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

This is based on who I believe will be the best players 3 years down the road. As long as they show steady improvement I don't care about our pick's production in the next couple years, since Portland won't be in a position to be seriously competitive anyway. 

Bargnani
Gay
Aldridge
Morrison


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> I'd still rather have what morrison (or gay) can get us in the long run, because I think it'll be higher than 18 5 and 5.


Hap, I didn't see your picks, who are your top 4?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Gay
Aldridge
Morrison
Thomas


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> Hap, I didn't see your picks, who are your top 4?


In order of "talent" (which isn't just slang for "athleticism")

Bargnani
Morrison
Gay
Aldridge (all basically tied)

in order of who I think will be drafted

Bargnani
Aldridge
Gay
Morrison


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> In order of "talent" (which isn't just slang for "athleticism")
> 
> Bargnani
> Morrison
> ...


I soooooo hope you are right and we keep the 4th pick!


----------



## luckylakers (Aug 10, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> 1. Andrea Bargnani
> 2. Rudy Gay
> 3. LaMarcus Aldridge
> 4. Adam Morrison


ya thats good


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Blazed said:


> *1) Tyrus Thomas* - A rare player who can change games from the defensive side of the ball. Unmatched basketball instincts, great college production and tons of potential on top of that. And not potential as in Travis Outlaw, potential as in Bill Russell.
> *2) Adam Morrison* - A passionate on the floor leader who actually wants to play basketball. That's a drastic change of scenery from anything seen in a Blazers forward in a long time.
> *3) Rudy Gay* - Tons of talent and more potential to grow, but lacks the proven leadership and passion for the game both Thomas and Morrison have shown in abundance.
> *4) Andrea Bargnini* - The play of Nowitzki sure isn't hurting Bargnini's chancs of being selected #1.


I updated my list. I know Tyrus Thomas doesn't get much love around here, but you guys are severely underrating this kid. He'll be a star and a game changer on defense. Actually, the first time I saw Thomas I said to myself that he should be the number one pick.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

How I think the draft will go

TOR = Bargnani
CHI = Thomas
CHA = Morrison
POR = Aldridge


----------



## JasonOPS (Mar 15, 2006)

This is how I would choose:

1. Aldridge
2. Morrison
3. Bargnani
4. Roy

I think it is highly important for Portland to consider talent as well as character. 
Players such as Gay and Thomas already have questions concerning their character or effort.
Portland can't afford these types of risks in my opinion.

I'm sure I might change my mind as we get more information about these players.

Jason


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

TOR - Bargnani
CHI - Aldridge
CHA - Morrison
POR - Thomas


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

1-Adam morrison
2Lamarcus aldridge
3Rudy Gay
4Brandon roy,Bargnani
Write that down that will be the draft.


----------



## Zybot (Jul 22, 2004)

This is one of the most difficult drafts in recent memory to predict. No Clear top-pick or top two picks.

In the end, think this is how the draft will go:

#1 Morrison
#2 Aldridge
#3 Gay
#4 Bargagni
#5 Roy

I don't want Aldridge for the Blazers (I think there will be better "big" prospects next year). So for me, my top four is Morrison, Gay, Bargagni, and then Roy. Although Bargagni is tall, I think he has some unique skills for his size that make him an intriguing prospect. I don't know that Morrison is that much better than Roy, so whoever we get is fine with me. Hopefully they fit in to Nate's system, or Nate adapts.

Edit: Weird, Chromekilla and I have basically the same prediction.


----------

