# Write it down now - whoever gets Brandon Roy gets the steal of the draft



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

This kid is going to be special. Mark me down for leading the charge to draft this guy at #4. He wreaks havoc on the defensive end, he can shoot, he can drive, he can pass. He plays with heart. He strikes me as the epitome of a "Nate guy" and I hope the organization is paying close attention.

I mean, look at his stats from his senior year:

20 ppg
51% FG
41% 3 pt.
81% FT
4.1 apg
5.6 rpg
0.8 bpg
1.4 spg

Not to mention how he played in the tournament. This is a big-game performer. And I'd hate to see him go somewhere else and flourish, knowing we passed on him.

But that's just one man's opinion.

-Pop


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Can the moderators merge this thread with the other numerous Roy threads?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

The steal of the draft? Does that mean you'd take him with the No. 1 pick?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Steal of the draft? That is usually designated for someone that isn't expected to be drafted top 6.


This whole "Nate guy" thing is pissing me off as well. Why is it we want "Nate guy's" anyway. What exactly has Nate done to warrant any kind of trust in the players he likes. He continued to start Dixon over Martell most of the year. Darius over evetyone else, Started the season with Charles Smith in the starting line-up, and now want's to draft a 6'5" shooting guard that doesn't have a consistant outside shot. Isn't that Derek Anderson in a nutshell? YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Roy is the steal of this draft if he is drafted after pick 9, imo.


----------



## RickRoss (May 24, 2006)

If by "steal of the draft" you mean a mediocre undersized player (6'5" only 195) with no star potential that will stunt Websters growth, then I guess you are right. Man I am glad you arn't the gm. Roy is the wort possible pick! By far!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Steal of the draft? That is usually designated for someone that isn't expected to be drafted top 6.
> 
> 
> This whole "Nate guy" thing is pissing me off as well. Why is it we want "Nate guy's" anyway. What exactly has Nate done to warrant any kind of trust in the players he likes. He continued to start Dixon over Martell most of the year. Darius over evetyone else, Started the season with Charles Smith in the starting line-up, and now want's to draft a 6'5" shooting guard that doesn't have a consistant outside shot. Isn't that Derek Anderson in a nutshell? YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!


What do you mean he does not have a consistant outside shot. Derek never came close to being the shooter that Roy is. He might not be blazing hot from the outside but I would say he is very good and very consistant. I watched him a lot last year and he came to play every game and performed well most every time out. This guy is the epitome of consistancy.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Maybe someone will answer me in this thread...

What can Brandon Roy do, that Rudy Gay can't?


----------



## RickRoss (May 24, 2006)

Tince said:


> Maybe someone will answer me in this thread...
> 
> What can Brandon Roy do, that Rudy Gay can't?


Exactly! Roy didn't put up good numbers til his senior season, and Rudy is only a soph. Gay is 4 inches taller, 2 years younger, a much better athlete, a much better defender (1.8stls, 1.6blcks in 30 min), and a better shooter. It's not like we are going to make the playoffs next year. You have to be a real moron to take Roy over gay!


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

I think Gay will be rookie of the year, hopefully on the Blazers.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I would rather have Gay then Roy but I think that to discount Roy is missing out on something. As to answer the question of what Roy can do that Gay can not, I think the answer is Leadership. I think that Gay may end up with with better stats but I think that Roy is the kind of guy to help guide a team and lead the group to victory. He is also a big moment player much more so then Gay. When the game is on the line Roy seems to step up but Gay often fades away.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

meh....

When Gay and Roy went head to head briefly....Gay destroyed Roy....

Morrison lit him and B.Jones for 43pts...

Roy's statline for that game? He fouled out with 10pts and 5 TO...UW won that game, but it wasn't b\c of Roy...


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> When the game is on the line Roy seems to step up but Gay often fades away.


No Roy is often sitting on the bench with 4 or 5 fouls...Just like he did against UCONN and just like he did against Gonzaga...

Lucky for him he has some really talented teamates and a very good coach to back him up...


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

thylo said:


> I would rather have Gay then Roy but I think that to discount Roy is missing out on something. As to answer the question of what Roy can do that Gay can not, I think the answer is Leadership. I think that Gay may end up with with better stats but I think that Roy is the kind of guy to help guide a team and lead the group to victory. He is also a big moment player much more so then Gay. When the game is on the line Roy seems to step up but Gay often fades away.


 I'm not sure Gay can't be a leader in the future. Roy was just a role player his sophomore year on a Husky team that got bounced in the first round. Who's to say Gay wouldn't be a leader two years down the road had he stayed at UConn?


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

huck the fuskies :banana:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

sabas4mvp said:


> huck the fuskies :banana:


 Can't argue with that!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

RickRoss said:


> Exactly! Roy didn't put up good numbers til his senior season, and Rudy is only a soph. Gay is 4 inches taller, 2 years younger, a much better athlete, a much better defender (1.8stls, 1.6blcks in 30 min), and a better shooter. It's not like we are going to make the playoffs next year. You have to be a real moron to take Roy over gay!


Ahh, good, name calling. What a tremendous way to start your young experience here.

I believe in previous posts it has been intimated that if Roy were to be taken, that Webster would slide over to the SF spot, something that many people have theorized may happen anyways. So I don't think that drafting Roy, or anybody at SG, will stunt Webster's growth.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Steal of the draft? That is usually designated for someone that isn't expected to be drafted top 6.
> 
> 
> This whole "Nate guy" thing is pissing me off as well. Why is it we want "Nate guy's" anyway. What exactly has Nate done to warrant any kind of trust in the players he likes. He continued to start Dixon over Martell most of the year. Darius over evetyone else, Started the season with Charles Smith in the starting line-up, and now want's to draft a 6'5" shooting guard that doesn't have a consistant outside shot. Isn't that Derek Anderson in a nutshell? YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!


MM, we all know you want a fast-paced team similar to Phoenix. And we all know you don't like Nate. But I think it's pie-in-the-sky dreaming if you think they are going to fire Nate anytime soon (and by anytime, I mean within the next two years). Nate is the coach and will be the coach. He's already said a couple of times that he likes the approach Sloan had in Utah of bringing in "Sloan-type guys". Now whether that holds any water with the organization or not, we'll see with this draft.

Regardless of whom they draft or who anyone wants, Roy is NOT Derek Anderson. Roy actually plays some D and doesn't appear to be a selfish, overpaid star-wanna-be....

The problem with this draft is that, sure, 1-4 supposedly are a "blend" with no real superstar, but so are 4-8.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Steal of the draft? That is usually designated for someone that isn't expected to be drafted top 6.
> 
> 
> This whole "Nate guy" thing is pissing me off as well. Why is it we want "Nate guy's" anyway. What exactly has Nate done to warrant any kind of trust in the players he likes. He continued to start Dixon over Martell most of the year. Darius over evetyone else, Started the season with Charles Smith in the starting line-up, and now want's to draft a 6'5" shooting guard that doesn't have a consistant outside shot. Isn't that Derek Anderson in a nutshell? YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!


Exactly Nate hasn't done anything that impressed me.Starting dixon over martell was dumb.Roy is a good choice.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Tince said:


> Maybe someone will answer me in this thread...
> 
> What can Brandon Roy do, that Rudy Gay can't?


Handle the ball, defend quick guards. I'm not saying I would take Roy over Gay, but they are completely different players. Roy is more of a less athletic version of Wade. He has handles, can play 1 or 2, has a solid all around game. Gay is long 3 who can slash. I don't think it is fair to compare them directly.

Morrison will be gone. When Gay and Roy met head to head? In the NCAAs, Roy had 20 pts, 4 reb, *3 asst, 3 stls and zero (0) turnovers*. In about the same minutes, Gay had 12 pts, 3 reb, *0 asst, and 6 TOs*. I know UConn won the game in OT, but Gay didn't looks so hot in this one.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Reep said:


> Handle the ball, defend quick guards. I'm not saying I would take Roy over Gay, but they are completely different players. Roy is more of a less athletic version of Wade. He has handles, can play 1 or 2, has a solid all around game. Gay is long 3 who can slash. I don't think it is fair to compare them directly.
> 
> Morrison will be gone. When Gay and Roy met head to head? In the NCAAs, Roy had 20 pts, 4 reb, *3 asst, 3 stls and zero (0) turnovers*. In about the same minutes, Gay had 12 pts, 3 reb, *0 asst, and 6 TOs*. I know UConn won the game in OT, but Gay didn't looks so hot in this one.


 I agree with the ball handling...I've never seen Gay attempt to defend a PG, so I can't go either way. Luckily, he won't have to defend PG's so it doesn't really matter.

Remember when you compare a UW vs. UConn game, you're comparing an older more experienced player who's role is to lead his team against a sophomore on a much more talented team who was more or less expected to blend in as part of the team. 

To your point, I recall watching the game and Roy looked better that night, no questioned asked. I hope they go against each other in workouts because I feel one of them will make some seperation.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> When Gay and Roy met head to head? In the NCAAs, Roy had 20 pts, 4 reb, 3 asst, 3 stls and zero (0) turnovers. In about the same minutes, Gay had 12 pts, 3 reb, 0 asst, and 6 TOs. I know UConn won the game in OT, but Gay didn't looks so hot in this one.


UH...what game were you watching?

Seriously...right after Gay & Roy jawed and they were matched up against one another (they were not for most of that game)...Gay owned Roy for the next 5-10 minutes....CLEARLY showing who the better player was IMO...and it wasn't even close...

BTW where was Roy at the end of that game? Oh yeah....on the bench...he often was there towards the end of games due to foul trouble....He had a good game, but didn't show anything extraordinary IMO...


and another thing...let's stop overating his defense.....He is an decent defender...but certainly no better than Gay is and niether he nor Bobby Jones could contain Adam Morrison, when he went off for 43pts...

I think it is ironic that some people have stated that Roy will be a very good NBA defender and that Morrison will have trouble scoring in the NBA...when Morrison had ZERO trouble scoring at Roy....and Roy when he was on him, couldn't contain him...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> MM, we all know you want a fast-paced team similar to Phoenix. And we all know you don't like Nate. But I think it's pie-in-the-sky dreaming if you think they are going to fire Nate anytime soon (and by anytime, I mean within the next two years). Nate is the coach and will be the coach. He's already said a couple of times that he likes the approach Sloan had in Utah of bringing in "Sloan-type guys". Now whether that holds any water with the organization or not, we'll see with this draft.
> 
> Regardless of whom they draft or who anyone wants, Roy is NOT Derek Anderson. Roy actually plays some D and doesn't appear to be a selfish, overpaid star-wanna-be....
> 
> The problem with this draft is that, sure, 1-4 supposedly are a "blend" with no real superstar, but so are 4-8.



I just think 1-4 assuming they are Aldridge, Bargnani, Morrison, Gay have a better chance of being special than the rest. Roy is solid. Solid 6'5" shooting guard that relies on driving because he doesn't have a consistant outside shot. That's not what we need.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> UH...what game were you watching?
> 
> Seriously...right after Gay & Roy jawed and they were matched up against one another (they were not for most of that game)...Gay owned Roy for the next 5-10 minutes....CLEARLY showing who the better player was IMO...and it wasn't even close...
> 
> ...



Exactly. Roy is an average defender. Morrison is worse. Morrison is a great scorer. Roy is worse. Morrison fills a need for our team. Roy doesn't. 

Once again, why would this organization let their career sub .500 coach call the shots on draft day.

Maybe Portland fans will luck out and Taco Bell will give away free chalupas at 80 points.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

mediocre man said:
 

> Once again, why would this organization let their career sub .500 coach call the shots on draft day.


Maybe because our GM and President have taken a 50 win team and turned it into the the worst team in the NBA. With Nash and Patterson calling the shots we haven't done that great.


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

If we draft Roy, I'm going to drink poison.

He's TINY.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

TradeShareefNow said:


> If we draft Roy, I'm going to drink poison.
> 
> He's TINY.



with a 2nd pick in the lotto? Sure (altho only if he's the best left). With our first pick!? 

eeeeeeeesh.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Reep said:


> Handle the ball, defend quick guards. I'm not saying I would take Roy over Gay, but they are completely different players. Roy is more of a less athletic version of Wade. He has handles, can play 1 or 2, has a solid all around game. Gay is long 3 who can slash. I don't think it is fair to compare them directly.
> 
> Morrison will be gone. When Gay and Roy met head to head? In the NCAAs, Roy had 20 pts, 4 reb, *3 asst, 3 stls and zero (0) turnovers*. In about the same minutes, Gay had 12 pts, 3 reb, *0 asst, and 6 TOs*. I know UConn won the game in OT, but Gay didn't looks so hot in this one.


Gay=overated had he not been at u conn he wouldnt be considered nearly as good.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

I don't especially like Roy, but he does remind me of a similar player who led his team into the NCAAs a few years ago.

Roy: 20 pts, 50% fg, 40% 3pt, 5.6 reb, 4.1 asst
Wade: 21 pts, 50% fg, 32% 3pt, 6.3 reb, 4.4 asst

I don't remember too many people excited about Wade when he came out. But, I bet there are some here that wouldn't mind having him now. Roy is not the athlete Wade is, but they do share similar qualities. I wouldn't right him off just because he is well balanced.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Tince said:


> Maybe someone will answer me in this thread...
> 
> What can Brandon Roy do, that Rudy Gay can't?


Exactly. And we don't need a SG. Just because Webster can play SF, doesn't mean he should. He has a good size advantage over a lot of other SG's, and I don't think moving him to SF would do any good.

It's Gay or Thomas for me.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

chromekilla said:


> Gay=overated had he not been at u conn he wouldnt be considered nearly as good.


Yeah he would have, are you kidding me? He was the #2 HS SF and #5 overall, right before Telfair. He was going to either Arizona or UConn. Teams don't like him just because he came from UConn. It's because of everything he can do. Shoot, defense, pass. He's good at everything, the only question about him is dedication. And if we can see if he is dedicated enough then we should pick him no matter what. He was the supposed #1 pick this year at the beginning of the year.

Here are the rankings btw:
Rivals.com


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Tince said:


> Maybe someone will answer me in this thread...
> 
> What can Brandon Roy do, that Rudy Gay can't?


He can put forth consistant effort. As someone mentioned, there was a 5 minute spurt in the UConn/UW where Rudy just whooped up on Brandon. But after that he was a non-factor. If he consistantly put forth that kind of effort I'd take him in a second. Well, if he consistantly put forth that kind of effort he'd probably be the top pick in the draft.

Our team may suck for a while longer but I think the atmosphere of putting forth a solid effort every game that Nate is trying to develop might make us pretty good sooner than we think. And if you bring in a guy like Rudy that goes against that you're probably setting yourself back a season or two.

I'd still take Morrison over either of them so I don't think it matters. 

For the time being I'd take Brandon over Rudy. But the Rudy apologists have brought up a lot of good points about adverse circumstances at UConn. If he's impressive in work outs and Nate likes him I wouldn't be unhappy to see us take Rudy. I think he's more talented than Brandon. If I thought they had the same work ethic I'd take Rudy in a second. After all, what sports fan doesn't want to start up a RU-DY chant every now and then.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

ebott said:


> He can put forth consistant effort. As someone mentioned, there was a 5 minute spurt in the UConn/UW where Rudy just whooped up on Brandon.


I don't know how anyone can say that Rudy Gay can't put forth consistant effort. I'm sure there has been times where it was fair to question his effort, but it doesn't automatically translate into him not giving effort in the NBA (especially given the chip on his shoulder). 

Roy vanished in many games his sophomore year at UW, yet grew to be a leader in his senior season. I don't see why at 19 year old Gay couldn't grow and mature to bring it every night by the time he's 22.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Tince said:


> I don't know how anyone can say that Rudy Gay can't put forth consistant effort. I'm sure there has been times where it was fair to question his effort, but it doesn't automatically translate into him not giving effort in the NBA (especially given the chip on his shoulder).
> 
> Roy vanished in many games his sophomore year at UW, yet grew to be a leader in his senior season. I don't see why at 19 year old Gay couldn't grow and mature to bring it every night by the time he's 22.



SEE: Darius Miles! :curse:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

ebott said:


> He can put forth consistant effort.


I don't think effort was the problem, but rather having a ton of older talent on the team. That Gay could lead a very talented veteran team in scoring says a lot, in my opinion.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think effort was the problem, but rather having a ton of older talent on the team. That Gay could lead a very talented veteran team in scoring says a lot, in my opinion.


you can give effort without scoring you know...


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> you can give effort without scoring you know...


Sure, but I haven't read about Gay disappearing on defense. When people complain about him disappearing, they point to his stats.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

baler said:


> SEE: Darius Miles! :curse:


 I saw Darius Miles, what's your point?


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I don't think effort was the problem, but rather having a ton of older talent on the team. That Gay could lead a very talented veteran team in scoring says a lot, in my opinion.


Very good points.....I think also too, Rudy deferred to his teamates too often...which also explains some of his lackluster statistical efforts....

But even saying that...he led the team in scoring...if he was inconsistent...what does that say about Williams, Armstrong, Boone, Brown and Anderson?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Sure, but I haven't read about Gay disappearing on defense. When people complain about him disappearing, they point to his stats.


I've heard stuff about him having mental lapses on defense (and offense). So whatever.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think Rudy is picked on far too harshley. He improved in every statistical category in only 2 more minutes. He is a tereffic defender, both statistically and in one-on-one settings. He has more slashing potential in the NBA than any other player in this draft, IMO. Athletically, he is on par with Outlaw. Difference is, can anyone realistically see a sophmore Outlaw playing for a stacked UConn team of veteran guys and exceeding Gay's 15.2ppg, 6.4rpg, 2.1apg, 1.8spg, 1.6bpg in 30.8 minutes a game. Gay may not be a Michael Jordan like go-to-guy, but he could be a great player.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think Rudy is picked on far too harshley. He improved in every statistical category in only 2 more minutes. He is a tereffic defender, both statistically and in one-on-one settings. He has more slashing potential in the NBA than any other player in this draft, IMO. Athletically, he is on par with Outlaw. Difference is, can anyone realistically see a sophmore Outlaw playing for a stacked UConn team of veteran guys and exceeding Gay's 15.2ppg, 6.4rpg, 2.1apg, 1.8spg, 1.6bpg in 30.8 minutes a game. Gay may not be a Michael Jordan like go-to-guy, but he could be a great player.


well, his 3 point shooting plummetted big time, so he didn't improve in every category.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I've heard stuff about him having mental lapses on defense (and offense). So whatever.


Wow, really? Can you provide a link?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Wow, really? Can you provide a link?



apparently you didn't read the thread that you posted in a while ago ("I'm on the "official" bandwagon" one)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3588506&postcount=45

it's not necessarily "mental lapses", but to me coasting and looking lost isn't much different.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

I'm new here, actually I've been reading this site for a while. I only signed up because I had to sign up to read the message board the other day.

A few of you seem to be remembering only what you want from that UW UCONN game. Roy had 1 foul with around 10 or more minutes left. Then he got a foul, and under a minute later got a non foul called on him and then a T (which was also a garbage call). 3 fouls in under a minute.... you can't judge his ability to finish games on that.

I'm not saying that he'll be the steal of the draft, but after losing Nate, Tre and Conroy the Huskies were supposed to finish mid table in the Pac 10, not be legitimate contenders for the national title.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Hap - 

What is your top 3 for POR?

I certainly think Gay should be in there

Mine is 

#1 Morrison
#2 Gay
#3 Bargnani


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

SMiLE said:


> it's not necessarily "mental lapses", but to me coasting and looking lost isn't much different.


Coasting suggests lack of effort. Looking lost can just be inexperience. One is worrisome from a 20-year old, the other isn't.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Hap -
> 
> What is your top 3 for POR?
> 
> ...


I'd say...

1A Morrison, 1B Barg and 1C Gay (altho thats depending on who's gone and how the workouts go)


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

porkchopexpress said:


> I'm new here, actually I've been reading this site for a while. I only signed up because I had to sign up to read the message board the other day.
> 
> A few of you seem to be remembering only what you want from that UW UCONN game. Roy had 1 foul with around 10 or more minutes left. Then he got a foul, and under a minute later got a non foul called on him and then a T (which was also a garbage call). 3 fouls in under a minute.... you can't judge his ability to finish games on that.
> 
> *I'm not saying that he'll be the steal of the draft, but after losing Nate, Tre and Conroy the Huskies were supposed to finish mid table in the Pac 10, not be legitimate contenders for the national title.*


I wouldn't say that they were legitimate contenders for the National Championship....They were on of many (actually 16) other teams still left...

Roy played solid all year for the Huskies, I liked his game a lot even though I'm a Husky hater...But he isn't worthy of a top 5 draft choice, especially at a position that we just drafted for last year....


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> UH...what game were you watching?
> 
> Seriously...right after Gay & Roy jawed and they were matched up against one another (they were not for most of that game)...Gay owned Roy for the next 5-10 minutes....CLEARLY showing who the better player was IMO...and it wasn't even close...
> 
> ...


Uh, I have it on tape and have watched it 5 times. Gay was a non-factor while Roy was all over the court, making steals, hitting big shots and leading his team. If Bobby Jones had not fouled out, the Huskies would have won that game going away.

Roy was in the game in OT and had a game tying bucket taken away when Armstrong's goal tend was not called.

Gay might have potential, but he is not a leader and has not proven himself in big games. Roy can do it all, shoot, defend, pass and hit free throws down the stretch. Gay has D. Miles written all over him, Roy has D. Wade written all over him.

I'll choose Roy.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Uh, I have it on tape and have watched it 5 times. Gay was a non-factor while Roy was all over the court, making steals, hitting big shots and leading his team. If Bobby Jones had not fouled out, the Huskies would have won that game going away.
> 
> Roy was in the game in OT and had a game tying bucket taken away when Armstrong's goal tend was not called.
> 
> ...


Going a little bit overboard don't ya think?

Roy doesn't have half the athletic ability that D. Wade had coming out of college and also didn't lead his team to a final four..


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Going a little bit overboard don't ya think?
> 
> Roy doesn't have half the athletic ability that D. Wade had coming out of college and also didn't lead his team to a final four..


I'll stand by my comparison. Roy is a complete player along the lines of a D. Wade. Not as athletic, but a better shooter from outside and can close out games from the line.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I know that people are only going off of what games they could see during the year, and a lot of that is tourney play, but a lot of people on this board need to realize that most players in the draft didn't make it to the NCAA finals, and most of them went out because they had a single bad game against a quality opponent. A vast majority of the NBA players who are worth a damn came into the same way, with their last college game being a loss in the tourney with a sub par performance. Some of them are having to deal with defenses they have never seen before, or being double or triple teamed for the very first time. Picking a high quality player apart for a single matchup is pretty worthless. 

My money is that both Gay and Roy will be good NBA players, playing different positions, Roy at SG and Gay at SF. The way I think about it is Roy would be a be a more versatile player, possibly playing up to 3 positions if he played a small 3 sometimes in a pinch, and has a better all around game, where Gay would be a more defined forward, able to playe the 3 and 4 in a pinch, but doing the things a good SF does, slash, score and rebound and finish. :clown: 

Which player do you want? The one that fills the biggest void on your team, unless you feel one has star potential over the other. You don't pass on drafting a star.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Brandon Roy is the next Aaron McKie, Gay and Morrison are a little better. This is a weak draft. I think the steals will be Sheldon Williams, and Ronnie Brewer.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Bump



:biggrin:

-Pop


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Bump
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is that the sound of a tooting horn I heard? :biggrin:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

While we're talking about Brandon Roy and the funny threads leading up to draft day, I thought I'd *BUMP* this one. 

-Pop


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I was kinda right about Brewer, Williams would have been a steal if the Hawks didnt reach so high on him. I didnt like Roy at 4 but I did like him where the Blazers got him and I thought he was worth Telfair. He certainly is better than a prime Aaron Mckie.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Gay has looked pretty good lately.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

If one of you could be so kind as to remind me this summer not to say anything about draft picks I would appreciate it. I probably still will, but just remind me please.

At least I was right about Aldridge, Bargnani, and probably Gay. 

Also that my "love" for Nate hasn't waivered.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I was not around on this board when this thread was started - but it sure is funny to read it now. It is good that KP and company did not fall in love with Ammo and Gay as some of the people on this board did.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

andalusian said:


> I was not around on this board when this thread was started - but it sure is funny to read it now. It is good that KP and company did not fall in love with Ammo and Gay as some of the people on this board did.




Actually the Blazers brass was torn about who to draft. Some liking A_am and some liking Roy. Thankfully Pritchard was given a bigger say in the draft than Patterson was. If not, A lot of us would be sad they listened to us. The one nice thing is we all could have taunted Zags and Oilcan daily


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Gay has looked pretty good lately.


yeah, if they do not want him, we will take him. How about Dickau for him  :rofl:



A Gay, Gasol and Oden frontcourt will look pretty nice


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Well, I was probably wrong about Roy. However, I was right about Bargnani, Gay and Aldridge, who were my top three draft prospects.

I didn't even dislike Roy as a player, I just felt he projected more as an all-around good supporting player and not a star. So far, though, Roy looks like he could be a star. We'll see.

And I still think I'm right on Tyrus Thomas, that he would be a bust. Nothing can be said conclusively after less than one season, but he's on his way.

Adam Morrison, I suppose, is still to be determined. I felt he'd be a mediocre player.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I admit it. I completely overlooked and ignored Brandon Roy leading up to the draft, and probably all the way through the summer. Never saw him play with the Huskies, and never really cared to. I pretty much wanted Morrison and that was it.

Thank GOD no one listened to me. Roy rules.

PBF


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

Ah, my first post was on page 3 of this thread, and the only reason I started posting was to give Blazer Maven at least one supporter.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

porkchopexpress said:


> Ah, my first post was on page 3 of this thread, and the only reason I started posting was to give Blazer Maven at least one supporter.


Thanks for the support. I think there was just a bit of anti-Husky bias against Roy leading up to the draft.

Roy was exactly what the Blazers needed, as was Aldridge, and Sergio came out of nowhere to become what everyone expected Telfair to be.

I am firmly aboard the KP train as he adds the next piece of the Blazer mosaic.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Props to Soda. He da man. I am certain your post set in motion a chain of events in the Blazers organizations, that ultimately became the difference (the tipping point), so that they decided Roy was the guy they were going to target to obtain via a trade.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy was exactly what the Blazers needed, as was Aldridge, and Sergio came out of nowhere to become what everyone expected Telfair to be.


It is actually interesting to see what happened in this draft - many people picked Roy to be R.O.Y and many thought Aldridge was a big with obvious talent - and the Blazers picked them up in the places where most expected them to go - they were conservative. They threw caution to the wind with Sergio and Joel #2 - so far it worked great with Sergio and it would be nice if it worked well for pick #30 - but I doubt anyone would really care much if it was a bust.

Compare that with previous years - #13 for Telfair (A surprise to everyone) and #6 for Martell (could have probably been there after #10.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Props to Soda. He da man. I am certain your post set in motion a chain of events in the Blazers organizations, that ultimately became the difference (the tipping point), so that they decided Roy was the guy they were going to target to obtain via a trade.


In all fairness, Roy wasn't exactly a "steal". Everyone knew he would go high and represent the rookie class well. The question was HOW good he would be. I don't think anyone really had him pegged as a legit Rookie of the Year candidate (consensus seemed to be between Bargnani and Morrison).

Sergio was the steal of the draft, IMO.

PBF


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> In all fairness, Roy wasn't exactly a "steal". Everyone knew he would go high and represent the rookie class well. The question was HOW good he would be. I don't think anyone really had him pegged as a legit Rookie of the Year candidate (consensus seemed to be between Bargnani and Morrison).
> 
> Sergio was the steal of the draft, IMO.
> 
> PBF


What?

I never said Roy was a steal. Where did you get that?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Masbee said:


> What?
> 
> I never said Roy was a steal. Where did you get that?


Soda started this thread about Roy eventually being the steal of the draft. I thought that's what you were giving him props for.

PBF


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> What do you mean he does not have a consistant outside shot. Derek never came close to being the shooter that Roy is. He might not be blazing hot from the outside but I would say he is very good and very consistant. I watched him a lot last year and he came to play every game and performed well most every time out. This guy is the epitome of consistancy.


Post #7 of this thread I supported Roy. I actually forgot because in all honesty I changed my mind often. Overall, the players I was interested in most were Gay, Roy and Bargnani. Players I flopped over were Aldridge and Morrison. Players I wanted nothing to do with were Foye and Tyrus Thomas. And one player I had never even thought about was our good friend Sergio.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Looking back at the draft, our managment gets an A+. The only possible difference I would have liked would be Bargnani instead of LaMarcus, but even that is debatable.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Looking back at the draft, our managment gets an A+. The only possible difference I would have liked would be Bargnani instead of LaMarcus, but even that is debatable.


After the draft Pritchard (I think, it could have been Patterson) said they wanted either Aldridge or Bargnani. I wonder who they would have selected if they had the option.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think they would have gone with Andrea. LaMarcus is a great player, but Bargnani has a skillset that is extremley rare for a big man and his type of game has been proven to excell in todays NBA.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> *If one of you could be so kind as to remind me this summer not to say anything about draft picks I would appreciate it.* I probably still will, but just remind me please.
> 
> At least I was right about Aldridge, Bargnani, and probably Gay.
> 
> Also that my "love" for Nate hasn't waivered.


Now if you would only do the same with Zach. :clap:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Actually the Blazers brass was torn about who to draft. Some liking A_am and some liking Roy. Thankfully Pritchard was given a bigger say in the draft than Patterson was. If not, A lot of us would be sad they listened to us. The one nice thing is we all could have taunted Zags and Oilcan daily


Actually the Blazers brass were united in getting Roy, according to my source, it was the idiots at 1080 the fan that wanted Adam.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I can not imagine how different this season would be if we had Morrison instead of Roy.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I was 100% wrong about Roy. For some reason I didn't want him at all, and to make matters worse we traded Bassy for him. I was so pissed off that day I was even not giving LMA the benefit of the doubt..and I thought Surge was just another guy..I was really upset for a few days.
I liked Ammo for a while, then went onto the Rudy bandwagon, looks like I was right about Rudy. I still wanted to take Ammo on draft night though....*shudder*I was torn on AB...turns out he's doing fine. I knew Sheldon would be terrible. I really wanted Tyrus for a while, but cooled on him, but in the same sense would have tried to take him if I were the GM..thank God that didn't happen. I did like LMA, after seeing his workout on Blazers.com.
I really blew it with the Roy bashing, but he's one of my fv's now and I think we got 3 of the 5 best players in this draft.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> After the draft Pritchard (I think, it could have been Patterson) said they wanted either Aldridge or Bargnani. I wonder who they would have selected if they had the option.


I'd still take LMA. He's a better rebounder and defender. Plus he can shoot out to 18 ft, we don't need our bigs shooting any further than that. His back to the basket game is much more polished then AB. AB is nice, but in a Okur kind of way.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

now bump the other 1000 threads that u got completly wrong


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> Now if you would only do the same with Zach. :clap:




Zach sucks. This team is far better without him. I'm not even sure we wouldn't be better off without him this season.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Zach sucks. This team is far better without him. I'm not even sure we wouldn't be better off without him this season.


I'm sure . . . we would be worse without him.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Zach sucks. This team is far better without him. I'm not even sure we wouldn't be better off without him this season.


Yet again you're wrong. At least you are consistent.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

RickRoss said:


> If by "steal of the draft" you mean a mediocre undersized player (6'5" only 195) with no star potential that will stunt Websters growth, then I guess you are right. Man I am glad you arn't the gm. Roy is the wort possible pick! By far!


sorry i just have to laugh at this.....although i came to the site right around draft time i did post in one thread that i wanted roy over morrison


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> Yet again you're wrong. At least you are consistent.



Let's see. We have won our only game without him. We were beating the Spurs without him being the focus of our offense. Nate inserts him into the game down the stretch and low and behold the Spurs win. There is absolutely no way you can say that I am wrong. You can disagree, but that's it.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm sure . . . we would be worse without him.



On what grounds?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I can not imagine how different this season would be if we had Morrison instead of Roy.


the odds would probably be much more in our favor of getting Oden or Durant. but I'm not complaining.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Let's see. *We have won our only game without him.* We were beating the Spurs without him being the focus of our offense. Nate inserts him into the game down the stretch and low and behold the Spurs win. There is absolutely no way you can say that I am wrong. You can disagree, but that's it.


Oh, wow, one whole game!

Our mistake was probably taking out Sergio, not putting Zach in. The mistake was not getting him the ball.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> the odds would probably be much more in our favor of getting Oden or Durant. but I'm not complaining.



Wouldn't that be a ironic twist of fate. When the Blazers finally have something good happen to the organization (a successful draft), that good fortune leads to missing out on a franchise player.

Of course we will never know . . . but that might be the situation.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> Oh, wow, one whole game!
> 
> Our mistake was probably taking out Sergio, not putting Zach in. The mistake was not getting him the ball.



No, the mistake was putting Zach in to guard the one of the 4 guards SA had in the game. I mean how stupid does a coach have to be to insert the worst defender on your team, who happens to be a PF, and tell him to guard one of four SG's in the game. 

The offense was moving fine with Sergio and without Zach. Nate took one out and put the other in, and the offense stopped. Then all SA had to do was get a shooter open who was being guarded by Zach.....oooooh, tough one


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

You honestly believe that we would have a better record this year without ZBO? That's crazy man..........he has single handedly won at least 10 games for us this year.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> No, the mistake was putting Zach in to guard the one of the 4 guards SA had in the game. I mean how stupid does a coach have to be to insert the worst defender on your team, who happens to be a PF, and tell him to guard one of four SG's in the game.
> 
> The offense was moving fine with Sergio and without Zach. Nate took one out and put the other in, and the offense stopped. Then all SA had to do was get a shooter open who was being guarded by Zach.....oooooh, tough one


I notice Quick doesn't agree with you and surprising you didn't include that in your Quick thread,,,funny how that happens.

As he said Zach takes the heat off of Brandon. But hey, the Spurs hitting four straight 3s, yes lets blame Zach for all of that. Your hatred for Zach really blinds you.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> I notice Quick doesn't agree with you and surprising you didn't include that in your Quick thread,,,funny how that happens.
> 
> As he said Zach takes the heat off of Brandon. But hey, the Spurs hitting four straight 3s, yes lets blame Zach for all of that. Your hatred for Zach really blinds you.




As does your love for him blind you.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> As does your love for him blind you.


Does this remind anyone else of the following exchange? No, not the Bonzi Wells vs Stackhouse thing (wait, how many of us actually remember that?)

Luke: Your thoughts betray you, Father. I feel the good in you, the conflict.
Darth Vader: There is no conflict.
Luke: You couldn't bring yourself to kill me before and I don't believe you'll destroy me now.
Darth Vader: You underestimate the power of the Dark Side. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny. 

followed by:

Darth Vader: You cannot hide forever, Luke.
Luke: I will not fight you.
Darth Vader: Give yourself to the Dark Side. It is the only way you can save your friends. Yes, your thoughts betray you. Your feelings for them are strong. Especially for... sister. So, you have a twin sister. Your feelings have now betrayed her, too. Obi-Wan was wise to hide her from me. Now his failure is complete. If you will not turn to the Dark Side... then perhaps she will...
Luke: [igniting lightsabre]
[shouts, interrupting]
Luke: Never! 

:starwars:


----------



## obiwankenobi (Jan 31, 2004)

I wish both those two had listened to me more.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

obiwankenobi said:


> I wish both those two had listened to me more.


actually, I should have used this exchange.

Luke: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
The Emperor: [laughing] Perhaps you refer to the imminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
Luke: Your overconfidence is your weakness.
The Emperor: Your faith in your friends is yours.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> actually, I should have used this exchange.
> 
> Luke: Soon I'll be dead, and you with me.
> The Emperor: [laughing] Perhaps you refer to the imminent attack of your rebel fleet? Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here.
> ...


Love is never a weakness YOU STUPID EMPEROR!!

Sorry....got a little carried away. Star Wars is so moving.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> As does your love for him blind you.


I'm just not a hater. I'm simply fair, MM, something you seem to be with most players but are not with Zach.


----------



## maxiep (May 7, 2003)

Okay, page one of this thread is pretty damn funny. I underestimated Roy too, but some people felt he flat out sucked.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> I'm just not a hater. I'm simply fair, MM, something you seem to be with most players but are not with Zach.




As am I. I think Zach is the best scorer and rebounder on the team. I also think he is the reason this team will never reach their full potential. For every 1 thing Zach does well he does 2 things poorly.

Scoring < Passing, Defense
Rebounding < Getting into trouble EVERY year, Running the floor


If you want to build around a guy that can't pass, set a screen, give 100% effort on defense...heck even 75%, demands the ball to be productive, and consistantly embarrasses the city and franchise in the off season with his run ins with the law then more power to you.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

hoojacks said:


> If we draft Roy, I'm going to drink poison.
> 
> He's TINY.



:boohoo:


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> As am I. I think Zach is the best scorer and rebounder on the team. I also think he is the reason this team will never reach their full potential. For every 1 thing Zach does well he does 2 things poorly.
> 
> Scoring < Passing, Defense
> Rebounding < Getting into trouble EVERY year, Running the floor
> ...


While his D isn't his strong suit, no arugment there, it's not true he doesn't do the rest of those things. He does set picks, he passes, when he has someone to pass to. He's not the best passer but he continues to improve. The same is even true of D, he's improved there at least effort wise. IMO you don't give him enough credit for what he does for the Blazers. Can he do it alone? No, but he can be a part to a championship.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mgb said:


> While his D isn't his strong suit, no arugment there, it's not true he doesn't do the rest of those things. He does set picks, he passes, when he has someone to pass to. He's not the best passer but he continues to improve. The same is even true of D, he's improved there at least effort wise. IMO you don't give him enough credit for what he does for the Blazers. Can he do it alone? No, but he can be a part to a championship.




Please watch Zach set a screen. He rolls too quick because he is affraid he won't get the ball if he doesn't. You also can't say the other things aren't true when one of them was him getting into trouble in the off season. Zach is a horrible passer because he holds the ball too long. Zach makes some good passes, but he's not a good passer. His help defense and transition defense are non existant.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> No, the mistake was putting Zach in to guard the one of the 4 guards SA had in the game. I mean how stupid does a coach have to be to insert the worst defender on your team, who happens to be a PF, and tell him to guard one of four SG's in the game.
> 
> The offense was moving fine with Sergio and without Zach. Nate took one out and put the other in, and the offense stopped. Then all SA had to do was get a shooter open who was being guarded by Zach.....oooooh, tough one


Actualy Nate put Jack in for Sergio, and Zack in for Outlaw, I believe. Both moves may have contributed to the loss. 

I am sure Nate was thinking that if he can put Zack in he has big advantage over a SG. And in Nate's mind Jack is the guy to get Zack the ball. 

I do not remember how many time-outs we had left, but I do not think we could have gone offense/defense at the time yet in the game, and it was a calculated stradigy. Did not work because SA made "all" of those threes. If they miss one we probably go on to win. 

Just some additional thoughts. We lost this game on several previous plays, such as when Web missed a wide open three from the corner. And it pains me to say it but (see avitar) Sergio did not get the team into a play and took a not so good three from the top of the key. Several other plays through out the game and the FTs etc.

gatopops


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

One more thing as I rewatched the game last night, Nate should have taken Ime out and put in someone like Freddie as it was Ime's man that was causing the catching-up by SA. Ime was limping badly and his man was going to his right on the dribble delibertly and Imecould not play anywhere near the defense he normally plays. That single fact seems to me to have been the single most important fact in the lose.

gatorpops


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

RickRoss said:


> If by "steal of the draft" you mean a mediocre undersized player (6'5" only 195) with no star potential that will stunt Websters growth, then I guess you are right. Man I am glad you arn't the gm. Roy is the wort possible pick! By far!


LOL @ stunting websters growth...old quotes are funny.


----------

