# Looking Ahead at our current PGs



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Well, we have 3 pretty good young PGs - Blake, Telfair, and Jack.

And, both the team and this board have been trying to figure out the right direction ad nausum on which PG to build on. The problem with all this is that we have being comparing our PGs to each other mostly, and occasionally to other PGs based on recent performance only.

I decided to put another spin on this argument (with apologies in advance for any in-house fighting), by comparing them to equivalent highly successful PGs at the SAME point in their respective careers. In other words, comparing Telfair to a really good PG WHEN that PG was completing their 2nd year. Got it?

First off, I won't bother trying this with JJ. Since he's just a rookie, there's not much to go on. But, I think we can all agree that if he stays healthy, he could have an impressive career - maybe.

I'm going to use PGs that have similar build (height, etc) and style, to make it interesting. For Blake, will look at the other PG's years 3 & 4, and for Telfair years 2 & 3.

First up - Blake.
Let's really hammer Stevo by comparing him to similar style pass-first guards - and their are some good ones - including current 2-time MVP Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups, who are similar in height and style. (Yeah, I know Kidd is a consideration - but Kidd is a lot bigger and can do marvelous things like post up people to get perimeter shooters easy shots).

The following information came from CBS Sportsline.

Yr    G   MIN   FG FGA FG% FG3 FG3A FG3% FT FTA FT% PTS AVG Ast/G
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blake
3     68 1781 206 470 43.8 76   184   41.3   72 91   79.1 560   8.2   4.5

Nash
3     40 1269 114 314 36.3 49   131   37.4   38 46   82.6 315   7.9   5.5
4     56 1532 173 363 47.7 60   149   40.3   75 85   88.2 481   8.6   4.9
Amazingly, Blake has Nash beat in nearly every statistical category for Year 3. In fact, Blake should very likely hold his own in Year 4 as well - if he plays. Promising.
Billups
3     13   305  34 101 33.7   7    41   17.1   37  44  84.1  112   8.6   3.0
4     77 1790 248 587 42.2 73   194   37.6 144 171 84.2  713   9.3   3.4
Year 3 was a wash for Billups, with only 13 games. Looking ahead to Year 4, what strikes me is how many times he got to the foul line. Everything else should be well within Blake's reach for next year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for Telfair, I'm going to look for shorter & lighter guards who look to score, but also get the assists. (Not many successful guards at this height & weight). AI is the obvious exception. I'll go ahead and use Parker as well, who is also similar in build and weight.

Yr    G   MIN   FG FGA   FG% FG3 FG3A FG3% FT FTA FT% PTS AVG Ast/G
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telfair
2     68 1641 228   578 39.4  57   162   35.2 130 175 74.3 643   9.5   3.6

Alan Iverson
2     80 3150 649 1407  46.1 70   235   29.8 390 535 72.9 1758  22.0  6.2 
3     48 1990 435 1056  41.2 58   199   29.1 356 474 75.1 1284  26.8  4.6
In terms of shooting %, they are almost even, with Telfair better at 3s. However, AI gets a whole lot more points and decent assists. It would be difficult for Telfair to catch AI on points scored with Nate's style of play.

Tony Parker
2     82 2774 484 1043 46.4  82   243  33.7 219 290 75.5 1269  15.5   5.3
3     75 2577 423 946   44.7  62   199  31.2 191 272 70.2 1099  14.7   5.5
Parker is slightly better in shooting % and superior in scoring. However, the scoring is not that far off - nor are the assists. I actually think Parker is someone Bassy could emulate in the right circumstances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully what this shows is that both Blake & Bassy have plenty of time to get better. In addition, both compare well against today's superstars at similar points in their respective careers. That does not guarantte anything, but may provide some insight into player development in the NBA

The big issue for NOW is going to be playing time - and, that doesn't even factor in JJ's time. Some tough decisions for the Blazer staff to make.

Speculate away....!


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

Sorry, but no speculation is needed. The only PG we need to look into trading is Steve Blake. Bassy, and Jack are locks.

Nice thread, though. :biggrin:


----------



## ODiggity (Feb 23, 2005)

Stretched out to per48 minute averages, Telfair and Iverson get even closer in their second years:

Telfair scored 18.8/48 asissted 7.2/48
Iverson scored 26.7/48 assisted 7.55/48.

That's not too much different-- what a line to live up to next year.

By the way;

Blake 15.1/48 8.3/48
Billups 17.6/48 6.2/48
Nash 12/48 8.3/48

But people always say per48 minutes stats aren't applicable and stuff.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i really think that Blake has a chance to be special and people here seem to be writing him off for some reason as the one to get dealt

why???....why give telfair the benefit of the doubt???

i do see that telfair made strides towards the end though...i hope that if we keep telfair that his FG% will go up but his jumper is very rigid and hits the rim super hard, not favorable for FG% #'s

why does blake have no potential??? people say oh well hey sebastian is gettin his first look at the league....well what kind of mins did blake get early on in his career....this was the 1st season that he got significant mins and look what he developed into....maybe he develops even further

for example, you can see that he had a sense of probing like Steve Nash but he will and could get even better feel as he gets more yrs under his belt

i am just not ready to write off Blake


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

riehldeal said:


> for example, you can see that he had a sense of probing like Steve Nash but he will and could get even better feel as he gets more yrs under his belt
> 
> i am just not ready to write off Blake


I completely agree, but unless Portland is willing to start Jack at SG and move Webster over to the 3, you stunt the minutes of Telfair and Jack by keeping Blake around.

Additionally, the market will bear a lot more for Telfair after a breakout season than Blake.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> i am just not ready to write off Blake


I am....

Blake is over FIVE years older than Telfair for starters...and their production was fairly equal...

Blake 8.2ppg 4.5apg 2.1rpg 41.3% 3pt FG% 43.8 FG% 1.2 TO in 26.2 minutes per
Telfair 9.5ppg 3.6apg 1.8rpg 35.2% 3ptFG% 39.5% FG% 1.7 TO in 24.2 minutes per 

Blake 3.7 A\TO 1.19 scoring efficiency
Telfair 2.1 A\TO 1.11 scroring efficiency

I'll go with the younger player, who while still adapting to the NBA is nearly as good\efficient than a guy 5 years his senior...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Telfair and Jack both have physical tools Blake will never have. Speed, Strength, Athletic Ability. If Steve Blake came back to this years camp with 20 extra pounds of muscle on him, I would think he has a chance. If he stays at 170, good luck. 

I think Portlands best option at this point (notice the pun!) :biggrin: Is to go with a 3 guard lineup with the minutes being split between Telfair, Webster, and having Jack come off the bench for whoever gets in foul trouble or is struggling with their matchup the least. That way all 3 get good minutes (Like in the Porter/Drexler/Ainge Days), so they are happy, they get involved in the game, and technically, we can match up against any team, big or small by using the following combos:

Normal Lineup: Telfair/Webster
Small Lineup: Telfair/Jack
Big Lineup: Jack/Webster


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

riehldeal said:


> i really think that Blake has a chance to be special and people here seem to be writing him off for some reason as the one to get dealt
> 
> why???....why give telfair the benefit of the doubt???
> 
> ...



I never said Blake didn't have potential. I just think Telfair, and Jack have more is all. And, you may be right about Blake one day developing into the same type of player that Steve Nash is, but I am more willing to give up on a player that we didn't use a lottery pick on, than a player we just _ended_ up with. Call that petty, but it's true.

I also really do see Telfair being an All-Star one day. Furthermore, who ever said we needed to split up this core of PG's just yet? I know we run the risk of alienating all of them by keeping them another year, but I say we do it. Then, we can really tell who is going to be our PG of the future.

Now, if management does decide to deal a PG this year, then I hope it is Blake. Not because I don't think he is good, or because I don't like him, but because of the fact I like the other guys just a little bit better.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

One major factor to consider when talking about Blake's future with the Blazers is that Nash pulled another Przybilla when he signed him to a two year contract. Now, if Steve has another good year next season, the Blazers will be in exactly the same position that they are with Joel this summer of not having Bird rights on him and only being able to offer a MLE deal when others may be able of offering more. For that reason alone, IMO, he has to be viewed as the odd man out in planning for the team's PG future.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

If Blake had as impressive college stats as Nash did, I might see the comparison of their first couple years in the NBA as valid. But until Blake shows he can actually score even remotely on the same level as Nash did in college, let alone the NBA...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

If the Blazers are looking at a trade for a player they really want (or a trade to get rid of Darius for someone they sorta want), and the only thing holding up the trade is that the Blazers want to give up a certain PG and the other team wants one of the PGs the Blazers want to keep, my bet is the Blazers will give up the one that the other team wants, if it will get them the other player they covet. Although I do think Nash and Pritchard and Nate each do have a preference, I don't think it's so strong that they can't part with any of them for the right deal, and make do with whoever is left over. 

At the same time, I don't think they are going into the off season thinking they have to trade any of them (or one of them). The team has other priorities to address. I guess I'm saying I don't think Portland is shopping any of its point guards. But they'll probably end up trading one to make a deal work.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> One major factor to consider when talking about Blake's future with the Blazers is that Nash pulled another Przybilla when he signed him to a two year contract. Now, if Steve has another good year next season, the Blazers will be in exactly the same position that they are with Joel this summer of not having Bird rights on him and only being able to offer a MLE deal when others may be able of offering more. For that reason alone, IMO, he has to be viewed as the odd man out in planning for the team's PG future.


I think the 2-year deal is a great way to evaluate a player. Would you be able to justify signing Przybilla to 3+ years with the numbers he had coming in? 

Not having bird rights sucks, but the alternative bogs the team down with too many long-term contracts.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> If Blake had as impressive college stats as Nash did, I might see the comparison of their first couple years in the NBA as valid. But until Blake shows he can actually score even remotely on the same level as Nash did in college, let alone the NBA...


 Yeah, but remember that Juan Dixon was his teammate during most of his college career at MD - and you know who got to do the scoring on those teams.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

ThePrideOfClyde said:


> Sorry, but no speculation is needed. The only PG we need to look into trading is Steve Blake. Bassy, and Jack are locks.
> 
> Nice thread, though. :biggrin:


Yes, by all means lets remove diverse points of view from this forum. If we don't it might become a . . . forum.

I am one who would keep Jack and Blake. *Does anyone really believe that Jack and Telfair will exist long term in the same back court?* Think about it. Telfair is fun to watch with his quickness, but I like watching the team better when Jack or Blake are running the show. I guess it depends on if you like AI-style ESPN top ten basketball, or team oriented ball movement basketball. 

Telfair may be better some day (maybe), and he does have charisma. But, Blake and Jack can run this team now and for many years to come, and could co-exist as the teams point guards.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> If Blake had as impressive college stats as Nash did, I might see the comparison of their first couple years in the NBA as valid. But until Blake shows he can actually score even remotely on the same level as Nash did in college, let alone the NBA...


Yeah, because that is what we want out of our PG--lots of scoring.

Wait, how many national titles did Steve Nash win in college? And who else on his team was NBA worthy?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

southnc said:


> ...comparing them to equivalent highly successful PGs at the SAME point in their respective careers.
> 
> ...Steve Nash and Chauncey Billups...AI...



An interesting read, nice work. 

Hard to find good players to compare them to though. Billups that year was not the starter, Terrell Brandon was and he had almost 600 assists. Iverson was not really a point guard until recently, Eric Snow was his point guard- although AI did have a lot of assists his first couple of years in the league.

Steve Nash only played in about half of the games in his 3rd & 4th years.

Those facts skew the numbers a bit, but since none of our 3 PGs were a "starter," maybe it helped your comparisons.


I'm a HUGE Steve Blake fan, but I won't be too sad if he's not a Blazer next year- as long as we get something good for him. I think of the three PGs we have now, he would be the best next year just like he was the best this year. In 3 or 4 years, hopefully Telfair & Jack will be better- they do have huge potential IMO. Potential to be better point guards than Steve Blake.

And Steve Blake is a pretty good point guard.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I think the 2-year deal is a great way to evaluate a player. Would you be able to justify signing Przybilla to 3+ years with the numbers he had coming in?
> 
> Not having bird rights sucks, but the alternative bogs the team down with too many long-term contracts.


I agree with you on the 2-year evaluation period, but what's to be lost by adding a team option for a third season? If a player pans out, the team can exercise the option and gain Bird rights on him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> Yeah, but remember that Juan Dixon was his teammate during most of his college career at MD - and you know who got to do the scoring on those teams.


so? it's not like he's shown that he has the ability to score since then.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> Yeah, because that is what we want out of our PG--lots of scoring.


who are the best PG's, the ones can create their own shot and keep the defense honest.

we need scoring period actually, and having it come from the PG (to the degree that Nash, Kidd, or Billups provide) isn't actually a bad thing.



> Wait, how many national titles did Steve Nash win in college? And who else on his team was NBA worthy?


oh, well I guess that means that Blake is better. I mean, afterall, he won a college championship.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> Telfair may be better some day (maybe), and he does have charisma. But, Blake and Jack can run this team now and for many years to come, and could co-exist as the teams point guards.


I understand what you're saying, but quickness is a commodity you can't teach. Telfair has the ability to get to the basket better than most PGs in the league and the learning curve/work ethic to learn the rest.

He was pretty much the only scoring option on his public high school team, so this was only the second year _in his life_ playing within an offense. 

Blake and Jack, meanwhile, both played four years at basketball factories in HS and at least 3 years in ACC programs. 

But let's be generous and count Telfair as having a year of structured B-Ball experience with his AAU team (the Juice All-Stars).

*Player: (Years of playing within a structured system)*
Telfair: 1 AAU, 2 NBA; _3 total_
Jack: 4 HS, 3 COL, 1 NBA; _8 total_
Blake: 4 HS, 4 COL, 3 NBA; _11 total_

In the second half of the season, Telfair began to show marked improvement under Nate's guidance. Getting rid of him now would be entirely premature.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> so? it's not like he's shown that he has the ability to score since then.


 Blake's scoring is nearly doubled from his previous year, and much higher than his rookie year.

But, I think you missed the point here. Blake is a "pass-first" guard, where scoring is not the priority - getting production (points) from other teammates IS.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> Blake's scoring is nearly doubled from his previous year, and much higher than his rookie year.
> 
> But, I think you missed the point here. Blake is a "pass-first" guard, where scoring is not the priority - getting production (points) from other teammates IS.


and you missed the point. Steve Nash has shown a much better ability to not only be a "pass first" PG, but to be a scoring PG too.

so to make the comparison between the two, as if nash's stats prove anything in regards to Blake, is pointless. They don't, they can't, and they never will.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Samuel said:


> I understand what you're saying, but quickness is a commodity you can't teach. Telfair has the ability to get to the basket better than most PGs in the league and the learning curve/work ethic to learn the rest.


I would agree with you if he were able to finish in traffic. I haven't seen any of that. Telfair can finish if he blows by the whole team (which he does sometimes), but if there is anyone who can play above the tim on defense, Telfair gets snuffed. I'm not sure anyone can expect that Telfair will ever be good at finishing around the rim. Maybe he can improve his ability to find lateral space (like Nash) and score without going in all the way. 

Also, Blake and Jack automatically bring the ball up and get the offense going. Telfair still looks to drive and dish too often. If he can learn to run the team better then his stock will rise in my book. But right now he is number three.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> and you missed the point. Steve Nash has shown a much better ability to not only be a "pass first" PG, but to be a scoring PG too.
> 
> so to make the comparison between the two, as if nash's stats prove anything in regards to Blake, is pointless. They don't, they can't, and they never will.


 LOL - Yes, Nash has shown to be a good scorer - but not his 3rd and 4th years. So, your now saying that scoring lots of points in college means the same in the NBA??? Ralph Sampson was an amazing college scorer - and his NBA career....

As I initially indicated, it's still too early to draw conclusions.

The only purpose of this thread was to show that both Bassy & Blake are on course (so far) to potentially be as good as Nash, AI, etc. Based on statistical information, they are both holding their own so far in their careers.

Of course, I cannot factor things such as Coaching preferences and styles, teammate performance, injuries, etc.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> I agree with you on the 2-year evaluation period, but what's to be lost by adding a team option for a third season? If a player pans out, the team can exercise the option and gain Bird rights on him.


I think Jack at the SG position is a nice temporary solution, but it makes more sense to sign a vet and play Webster most of the minutes next season. Jack will never be a primary SG in this league, so why stunt his growth by playing him the majority of his minutes there?

Ridnour and Daniels played 2500 and 2100 minutes in Nate's final year with the Sonics (respectively). Telfair and Blake played 1650 and 1800 minutes, with Jack getting a lot of time at SG with 1600. With the 3-man cycle Nate employed late last season, it became clear that he only wants 2 guys playing most of the minutes next season. 

I think a platoon at PG isn't a bad solution, but it just doesn't make sense developmentally to have 3 different court leaders with 3 different types of play on a team. That might have been what Randolph was so frustrated about.

If we want a PG who can take this team to the playoffs eventually, we need them on the court with this group of guys as much as possible. I don't see that happening with a platoon of 3.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> LOL - Yes, Nash has shown to be a good scorer - but not his 3rd and 4th years. So, your now saying that scoring lots of points in college means the same in the NBA??? Ralph Sampson was an amazing college scorer - and his NBA career....


until he got injured, he was a good scorer. 

I'm saying that showing the ability to score in college is usually a sign. Blake hasn't show much in the way of being a score


> As I initially indicated, it's still too early to draw conclusions.


compared to 2 guys, one of which is 5 years younger and not that much (if at all) worse, no it's not too early.



> The only purpose of this thread was to show that both Bassy & Blake are on course (so far) to potentially be as good as Nash, AI, etc. Based on statistical information, they are both holding their own so far in their careers.
> 
> Of course, I cannot factor things such as Coaching preferences and styles, teammate performance, injuries, etc.


Blake is on par to be as good as danny young.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> I would agree with you if he were able to finish in traffic. I haven't seen any of that. Telfair can finish if he blows by the whole team (which he does sometimes), but if there is anyone who can play above the tim on defense, Telfair gets snuffed. I'm not sure anyone can expect that Telfair will ever be good at finishing around the rim. Maybe he can improve his ability to find lateral space (like Nash) and score without going in all the way.
> 
> Also, Blake and Jack automatically bring the ball up and get the offense going. Telfair still looks to drive and dish too often. If he can learn to run the team better then his stock will rise in my book. But right now he is number three.


And before Telfair was benched, I would totally agree with you. But something seemed to click with Telfair late in the season, and I saw him passing and moving the ball around with more confidence.

In this league, I think, a lot of players start out as shoot-first point guards. Running an offense is important, but without an offense of your own, you lose a few important tools that all great point guards have. Sure they look raw now. But with a few years under their belts and lots of practice, they'll be damn good. Telfair will make those layups after blowing by guys. Jack will start making his bread and butter: the mid-range jumper.

Nash and Billups are good for these very reasons. I'm not convinced that Jack and Telfair will be as good as them, but they have the same offensive tools to work with. Blake simply doesn't.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> compared to 2 guys, one of which is 5 years younger and not that much (if at all) worse, no it's not too early.


 Seriously - you really need to read posts more carefully - the whole point of this thread was NOT to compare our PGs to each other. Rather to compare them to already highly successful PGs at similar point in their careers.

Recommend you calm down and re-read the original intention of this thread.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

trade blake with miles telfair and jack are our future blake was a stop-gap measure that just happened to work out. 

Best to trade blake toward the end of the season telfair became a shoot and pass pg the best type of pg, shoot first types dont get the team involved enough and pass first types dont keep the defense honest, what the best pgs are shoot and pass pgs magic, nash, kidd, porter...etc.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

southnc said:


> Seriously - you really need to read posts more carefully - the whole point of this thread was NOT to compare our PGs to each other. Rather to compare them to already highly successful PGs at similar point in their careers.
> 
> Recommend you calm down and re-read the original intention of this thread.


I understood the point. comparing them to any PG's at an early stage in their careers is difficult to do, because you're comparing good players early careers vs players we don't know about. What about compared to brevin knight? or the like.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> I understood the point. comparing them to any PG's at an early stage in their careers is difficult to do, because you're comparing good players early careers vs players we don't know about. What about compared to brevin knight? or the like.


 I did consider that, and it is certainly a good comparison to point out. But, I was looking for more successful PGs, in terms of getting their teams to get lots of wins. Using AI was a stretch, but Telfair is a rarer type of PG than JJ or Blake.

Your point about the difficulty in comparing against other players in the early stages of their careers is well taken - by using this method, I was actually hoping someone on this board might find some intrinsic that might be an "indicator" of success.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Nate even commented that Telfair was one of the few players on the Blazers who could at any given time create a shot for himself..

Some of you act like this is a bad thing...

I actually think it is a VERY good thing for our PG to have...

This whole idea of the team needing a pass-1st PG is stupid...The team doesn't "need" a pass 1st PG, they needs a good PG in general...and they come in all different types...

I thought Telfair towards the end of the season was much more in control as a distributor and was able to drive and create at will, and FINISH much better than he had earlier in the year....

He still needs to work on his outside shot...he absolutely has to if he wants to excel in the NBA....but I think the Tony Parker comparisons are very good...They both have great quickness, they both can penetrate at will, outside shooting isn't a strength for either of them and they are both more scoring than passing PG...

and Blake will NEVER...EVER....let me repeat that...EVER be Steve Nash...

2-time MVP? Steve Blake? Some of you need to put down the peace pipe....


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I understood the point. comparing them to any PG's at an early stage in their careers is difficult to do, because you're comparing good players early careers vs players we don't know about. What about compared to brevin knight? or the like.


It would be interesting to see the following comparisons:

Telfair to Dooling, B. Knight, Claxton, J. Terry

Jack to Baron Davis, Andre Miller, Jacque Vaughn, Marbury, Best

Blake to William Avery, Duhon, Vonteego Cummings, Bobby Sura


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Don't need to look to trade any of them. Wait for a team to come calling who'll take Darius and also wants a PG added in. Its a wonderful problem to have 3 good PG's on the team. Blake's contract (no bird rights third year) makes him the most likely to be moved this summer, if a trade goes down.

We're not supposed to using our MLE to re-sign our own FA's. I like the third year team option idea.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Blake's stock will never be higher than it is right now. 

Buy low sell high.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Verro said:


> Blake's stock will never be higher than it is right now.


 Based on....??


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Verro said:


> Blake's stock will never be higher than it is right now.
> 
> Buy low sell high.


The "Buy Low, Sell High" theory doesn't work with Blake, because he's not making much money. I think he's only making around $1 million this year ... so Portland would try to find an equally good player making $1 million to make it work. That's going to be hard to do.

That said, he still might wind up as part of a package deal. But that's as far as the "Buy Low, Sell High" theories go.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

southnc said:


> Based on....??


The fact that he had a very good year, showing abilities to shoot, run an offense and hit big shots. In addition he is still relatively young and improving, so he still has upside. All the reasons I would like to keep him.

I assume that southnc's concern is that it is implied that Blake has hit a ceiling. I don't think there is any reason to assume that he has.

Currently, without considering potential or age, I see our PGs ranked as Blake>Jack>Telfair. Here are some factors that might limit them from becoming all-stars.

Blake = will always be skinny, and will likely never be a charismatic leader (like S. Marion)
Telfair = will always be short (and light?)
Jack = ?? [I can't think of an obvious limiter]

For those of you who want to trade Blake, what do you see happening to the PG position in three years? Do you think that Jack and Telfair will share the position [assuming the loser will be happy coming off the bench]? If we trade Blake, then three years down the road, one of Telfair and Jack will also have to be traded. I'm not sure the same is true if the Blazers kept Jack and Blake or Telfair and Blake. Any thoughts?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Telfair and Jack are gonna be fine players, Blake, he's as good as he is gonna get. I don't know how many times we've been over this, but Blake is 26 and Telfair is 20 and Jack is 22, so why the **** would we trade a younger guy?

Also, when Tony Parker was Telfair's age he was putting up nearly identical stats...and I expect that to keep going, with Telfair's averages being around 14/5-6ish next season, which is pretty damn good, for a 21 year old.

I think down the road we will encounter a problem with two good PG's in Telfair and Jack, but hey, thats never a bad thing.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Telfair and Jack are gonna be fine players, Blake, he's as good as he is gonna get. I don't know how many times we've been over this, but Blake is 26 and Telfair is 20 and Jack is 22, so why the **** would we trade a younger guy?
> 
> Also, when Tony Parker was Telfair's age he was putting up nearly identical stats...and I expect that to keep going, with Telfair's averages being around 14/5-6ish next season, which is pretty damn good, for a 21 year old.
> 
> I think down the road we will encounter a problem with two good PG's in Telfair and Jack, but hey, thats never a bad thing.


 Again, the purpose of this thread was NOT to compare our PGs with each-other - this has been discussed ad nausum. Read the begining of this post. I don't want this thread to head in that direction. :curse: 

I agree that if Telfair can mold himself into Parker, that would be very ideal.

However, any talk of "hitting the ceiling" or "as good as he's gonna get" needs to be substantiated. :biggrin:


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

one key difference between Parker and Telfair is the fact that yes they both can penetrate at will but as of now Telfair has not shown the natural ability to finish amongst the trees......the trait that truly sets Tony apart from the rest


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

riehldeal said:


> one key difference between Parker and Telfair is the fact that yes they both can penetrate at will but as of now Telfair has not shown the natural ability to finish amongst the trees......the trait that truly sets Tony apart from the rest


Bassy got better as the year finisheed up. He just has to add some muscle, clam down a bit (stop trying to do too much) and he'll be good to go.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

riehldeal said:


> one key difference between Parker and Telfair is the fact that yes they both can penetrate at will but as of now Telfair has not shown the natural ability to finish amongst the trees......the trait that truly sets Tony apart from the rest


Actually, interestingly enough according to 82games, Telfair was third in the league for % of baskets made after a foul. I realize this isn't proof that he's a great finisher, but it sure surprised me when I first saw it. I would have never suspected it.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

foulzilla.....


great avatar (pic...or whatever you call it).....boy do i miss those days


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

riehldeal said:


> one key difference between Parker and Telfair is the fact that yes they both can penetrate at will but as of now Telfair has not shown the natural ability to finish amongst the trees......the trait that truly sets Tony apart from the rest


I beg to differ. After he had healed from the injury, he was a much better finisher, as his thumb was fully healed and his confidence back. That was one of the reason's his FG% was pretty high at the end of the year.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

> Based on....??


His lateral speed, his first step, his coordination in traffic and around the basket are mediocre at best. His court vision, ball handling and passing skills are mediocre. If a word sums up Steve Blake it’s ‘mediocre’. He however does have a high basketball IQ, which makes him a serviceable PG and a commodity in this league. 

Unlike our other two PG’s I haven’t seen noticeable improvement in his skills. He’s shown statistical improvements mainly due to increased playing time this season on a very very poor team. 



> The "Buy Low, Sell High" theory doesn't work with Blake, because he's not making much money. I think he's only making around $1 million this year ... so Portland would try to find an equally good player making $1 million to make it work. That's going to be hard to do.
> 
> That said, he still might wind up as part of a package deal. But that's as far as the "Buy Low, Sell High" theories go.


Package deals make up the vast majority of trades in the NBA, it’s rare to see a player for player transaction, so I don't see your point. The fact that he is only making $1 million per season is a large part of his current value. He probably won’t be on the team 3 years from now, which is around the time we'll start to be competitive. If we could do something such as packaging him with Detroit’s pick to move into the late teens I’d do it in a heartbeat, it’s better than letting him walk after Jack/Telfair/Webster emerge and his minutes decline.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

telfair has no floater which he badly needs and he gets away with sticking his off arm out there alot....IMO he is not a great finisher when confronted at the rim....

yeah sure if he is wide open after driving past his man but in my eyes i saw him struggle when confronted....just my opinion i guess


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> telfair has no floater which he badly needs and he gets away with sticking his off arm out there alot....IMO he is not a great finisher when confronted at the rim....
> 
> yeah sure if he is wide open after driving past his man but in my eyes i saw him struggle when confronted....just my opinion i guess


he's in his 2nd year. he's shown enough improvement from year one to year two, that keeping blake, who is 5 years older, going into his 4th year in the NBA and isn't marketably better than a 2nd year player 2 years from high school, is beyond illogical.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> he's in his 2nd year. he's shown enough improvement from year one to year two, that keeping blake, who is 5 years younger, going into his 4th year in the NBA and isn't marketably better than a 2nd year player 2 years from high school, is beyond illogical.


Exactly. Why keep the older guy when our 20 year old has showed more in his 2nd year then a guy going into his 4th?


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

my opinion on who should stay and who should go is completely contingent on who can get us the most in a trade.....i couldnt care less because i think JJ is the real deal and is better than blake and telfair

anyways....

my points in this thread were aimed to try and hedge what i viewed as false criticism of steve blake....no more room to get better?????? why???? wont even go into why i think some people believe that.....and dont be like oh well telfair has more speed, athleticism, strength....yeah well tell that to steve nash.....i am not comparing the two just sayin that a guy like steve nash would fail in the method of thinking 

i dont know, just rambling now....i need to stop posting today, uncharacteristically packed day of posting for me (posts runnin together now...dont know where one ends and the other begins anymore....haha)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> my opinion on who should stay and who should go is completely contingent on who can get us the most in a trade.....i couldnt care less because i think JJ is the real deal and is better than blake and telfair


can someone please show me where Jarrett has shown (anymore than telfair that is) that he's the "real deal"? 

it just seems that people pick a new player and defend him and act like he's so great or whatever, and tend to have no real concrete stats to back it up. it's a "gut feeling"...well in most cases, that gut feelnig is the breakfast burritos..



> anyways....
> 
> my points in this thread were aimed to try and hedge what i viewed as false criticism of steve blake....no more room to get better?????? why????


well, he's 5 years older (this sounds familiar) and not much better.

in the *7* years of higher level basketball that he's played over telfair, *(4 in college, 3 in the NBA...for basically a 5 year head-start) he's still not that much better. In 4 years of college, he didn't show much more than just being a passing PG, which won't cut it in this league (name me a PG who's mostly passing, and as limited offensively as Blake is, and notice how good they really are).



> wont even go into why i think some people believe that.....and dont be like oh well telfair has more speed, athleticism, strength....yeah well tell that to steve nash.....i am not comparing the two just sayin that a guy like steve nash would fail in the method of thinking


cept that steve nash is faster than blake, more athletic, and stronger. and oh yah..was much better in college.

ooh, I know..Blake won a national title in college, so that must mean he's better.

as I said when blake was being credited for beign the savior..let's not make him out to anything more than he is. a good role player, who was doing what he should be doing. playing it well.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

smile


i am gonna go ahead and trust my judgement of talent....as for this claim that steve is not that much better than telfair and is 4 yrs older, well i dont give a ****...i think telfair will always be a poor FG% type guy and did not show me many floor general traits

as for Jarret...cant teach size like that and is already a solid shooter...and wow my god maybe we will finally have a PG that can enter the ball into the post (telfair and damon couldnt and cant do this)...

stats stats stats stats.....there if thats what you want, there i said the word....stick to baseball and 'money ball" if thats what you want

and you completely missed my point with steve nash ... wasnt sayin steve blake was like him.....just that if you put nash up against other PG's and choose the faster, stronger, and more athletic player than he would lose more times than not and you would be fired as GM because of it

also just so you know steve nash is not that fast, he even says so....he is the master of misdirection, head/body fakes, and the art of change of speeds to create speed


out


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> smile
> 
> i am gonna go ahead and trust my judgement of talent....as for this claim that steve is not that much better than telfair and is 4 yrs older, well i dont give a ****...i think telfair will always be a poor FG% type guy and did not show me many floor general traits.


I know, I know..jason quick said the guys voted for him..



> as for Jarret...cant teach size like that and is already a solid shooter...and wow my god maybe we will finally have a PG that can enter the ball into the post (telfair and damon couldnt and cant do this)...


it's an insult to telfair to act like he's even remotely like damon in that regard. he's not bad at doing that, nor is jack the pinacle.

also, for a "solid shooter", jack is a pretty crappy 3 point shooter.



> stats stats stats stats.....there if thats what you want, there i said the word....stick to baseball and 'money ball" if thats what you want
> 
> and you completely missed my point with steve nash ... wasnt sayin steve blake was like him.....just that if you put nash up against other PG's and choose the faster, stronger, and more athletic player than he would lose more times than not and you would be fired as GM because of it


and if you pick steve blakes, you'll get no where.



> also just so you know steve nash is not that fast, he even says so....he is the master of misdirection, head/body fakes, and the art of change of speeds to create speed


he's faster than steve blake.



> out


yes, steve blake will be out of the league well before telfair or jack will be.

stop making blake into something he's not. he's a good backup...at *best*.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

its absolutely hilarious how you turn what i say into something its not.....its all you have 

unreal


and some wonder why the mid range game is missing....average basketball fan nowadays (you) doesnt recognize it or its value


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> its absolutely hilarious how you turn what i say into something its not.....its all you have
> 
> unreal



not really. you're making steve into something he's not, so I made your comment into something it wasn't.

tit for tat.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

hahahahaha......you dont even make sense.....you're makin a fool out of yourself


jack IS a better shooter than telfair ..... yes! even without a spectatcular 3 ball (its ok i promise...its possible)

jack IS a better post passer.....mere height difference is cause

and somehow you get to picking nash over steve blake....hahaha....you see that i am making sense in that comparing PG's physical attributes doesnt always prove correct and you say stupid slop

whatever.....i find it funny how defensive you get about telfair despite me sayin that i sont really care who stays


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i am done with this thread.....out


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> hahahahaha......you dont even make sense.....you're makin a fool out of yourself
> 
> 
> jack IS a better shooter than telfair ..... yes! even without a spectatcular 3 ball (its ok i promise...its possible)


jack is a better inside shooter, but overall (as you include outside shooting) he's not better. or if he IS better, it's not enough to think that telfair can't pass him. 



> jack IS a better post passer.....mere height difference is cause


again, it's not enough difference to justify anything (just as anything telfair has over jack isn't enugh to justify that he's (telfair) the "real deal" or some such nonesense label).



> and somehow you get to picking nash over steve blake....hahaha....you see that i am making sense in that comparing PG's physical attributes doesnt always prove correct and you say stupid slop


huh? No one here would ever pick blake over nash..I'm not sure what you're getting at by that comment. Really, what are you saying?



> whatever.....i find it funny how defensive you get about telfair despite me sayin that i sont really care who stays


well, considering you think jack is the 'real deal' and will be a better shooter than telfair, is a better passer than telfair, a better defender than him...yeah..you sure don't care who stays.

jack has his positive attributes, and his negatives. same with telfair. neiter one is "the real deal" in comparison to each other (altho compared to Blake, they are much closer to BEING the "real deal" than he is).

thanks for giving us your time jim rome. phenominal.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i know i said i was done with this thread but i cant help it


last comment=

i find it funny how telfair is perpetually improving and @ exponential rates, all while the competition (jack and blake) are standing still if not getting worse as in Blake because he is just SO DAMN OLD......


haha


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

riehldeal said:


> i know i said i was done with this thread but i cant help it
> 
> last comment=
> 
> ...


Yeah Grandpa Blake is standing over there leaning on his cane and wagging his wrinkly, gnarly index finger at Jack and Telfair and telling the young'ns stories about the FIRST President Bush.

All three point guards have their merits and having three PGs is a good problem to have.

That said, in Blake's defence, he would be further along in his own development IF he hadn't been injured and had ankle surgery in the fall of 2004. He came back from that but a few games in (this was maybe in December 2004), he got tangled up with the Nets' Vince Carter under the basket and same foot/ankle got injured and he had to sit out *more* games that season. And even after Blake was cleared to play again after recovering from re-injuring that ankle, Eddie Jordan was still having Gilbert Arenas (the man for whom Blake had been the primary backup) seemingly playing 48 minutes a game and it almost seemed as though Jordan completely forgot he had Blake on the bench. I don't actually remember Blake seeing meaningful PT for the Wiz the rest of that season until the 2005 Playoffs ... and I very much recall that final game in the Conference Semis against the Heat. Arenas fouled out with some 5 minutes left in the game and Blake (and Dixon) came off the bench and sparked a comeback -- including briefly taking the lead on a Jamison 3 from the baseline, assist Dixon, that ultimately fell short when Damon *($%# Jones launched the dagger 3. The last five minutes of that game actually still bother me. Of course, the Wiz were already down 3 games in that series and were on the verge of being swept but frankly you didn't have to be a Terps fan to appreciate the furious comeback that Blake and Dixon engineered in those five minutes.

Look we've been all over this before and I know Blake isn't hated necessarily (although I've been known to take some of the remarks that way and I'm sorry) and this is all a matter of circumstances making him expendable as far as the situation in Portland is concerned. I can live with that but one has to remember one of the reasons that Telfair and Jack have made such huge strides in their own games is because Blake was there to push them. That's a credit to all three individuals.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I understand what you're saying, but quickness is a commodity you can't teach. Telfair has the ability to get to the basket better than most PGs in the league and the learning curve/work ethic to learn the rest.
> 
> He was pretty much the only scoring option on his public high school team, so this was only the second year _in his life_ playing within an offense.
> 
> ...



Not to nit pick, because I understand your point....

But, AAU ball is far from structured ball...Nearly all AAU games are all-star style games in tournaments with each player trying to showcase himself to entice all the college scouts in attendance to offer them a scholarship....I've seen a whole bunch of AAU games because I had friends who played on the Portland Panthers and its rat-ball at its finest...You'll find more structure on the regular high school team than on any AAU team...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> But, AAU ball is far from structured ball...Nearly all AAU games are all-star style games in tournaments with each player trying to showcase himself to entice all the college scouts in attendance to offer them a scholarship....I've seen a whole bunch of AAU games because I had friends who played on the Portland Panthers and its rat-ball at its finest...You'll find more structure on the regular high school team than on any AAU team...


'Rat Ball' may be a description of some of the all-star teams out west (I'll agree with you on the Panthers) but back east it looks a little more competitive.

Regardless, the point was that Telfair was essentially the only offensive weapon on his high school team. In AAU ball he had to share the rock with other people.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> 'Rat Ball' may be a description of some of the all-star teams out west (I'll agree with you on the Panthers) but back east it looks a little more competitive.
> 
> Regardless, the point was that Telfair was essentially the only offensive weapon on his high school team. In AAU ball he had to share the rock with other people.


What about Telfair's 4 HS years?

Blake's job was to cover, and even start if one of our PG's got hurt, and that's what he did. He played his role, and when Telfair came back, he had to fight for the job back and became a better player from it. But since we won a few games in a row with Blake, all of a sudden he is better than Telfair and Jack. Any GM in the NBA would tell you that you don't trade a 20 year old PG just because you have a 26 year old one.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> i know i said i was done with this thread but i cant help it
> 
> 
> last comment=
> ...


who said jack is standing still or getting worse? Honestly, don't make an argument up that wasn't made. No one has said (at least, I haven't said) that Jack isn't getting or can't get better. 

It's that to say he's the "real deal" is silly, because neither he OR telfair are the "real deal" yet, as neither has proven they're significantly better than the other.

as for blake, if after 4 years of college and 3 years in the NBA (of which he hasn't shown he's a real offensive threat)...you get what you get.

Blake isn't magically going to turn into Steve Nash (as Telfair isn't going to turn into Iverson, and Jack isn't going to turn into Baron Davis). But Blake has a MUCH lower chance of turning into a really good PG than the other two have, because he's already more experienced...and not much better (if at all).


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i am just pointing out that you only ever mention that telfair is gonna get so much better 

and i am just sayin dont write off blake....not even neccessarily for our team just in general


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> i am just pointing out that you only ever mention that telfair is gonna get so much better
> 
> and i am just sayin dont write off blake....not even neccessarily for our team just in general


I don't say that he's "gonna get better", but that he's already as good as someone who's 5 years older and has more experience.

it's not wise to keep an older player with a much much much MUCH lower ceiling, over someone who's younger, with a much much much MUCH higher ceiling..who's already just as good.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

As between Telfair and Jack:

Jack can consistantly finish in traffic at the rim, Telfair cannot.

Jack can defend most guards (PG + SG) adequately-very well; Telfair is generally a weaker defender and specifically struggles against taller or bigger guards.

Will Telfair ever surpass Jack in these two areas given his size? I doubt it.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Amazing that the Telfair lovers dis Blake so much, but get so upset when someone disses Telfair.  Very predictable at this point.


Blake is the man. 

Telfair will be the man at some point.

Jack might too.


Right now, Blake is better than those guys. Build a team around him while looking at the future and not just next season? Probably not. Still, he's the best point guard on the team right now. 

Steve, some fans do like you _and _ Telfair.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Amazing that the Telfair lovers dis Blake so much, but get so upset when someone disses Telfair.  Very predictable at this point.
> 
> 
> Blake is the man.
> ...


this might shock people..but you can like someone and still see and admit to, their limitations.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

> this might shock people..but you can like someone and still see and admit to, their limitations.


Yeah, that really shocks me.



SMiLE said:


> stop making blake into something he's not. he's a good backup...at *best*.


Whatever.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Yeah, that really shocks me.
> 
> Whatever.


seriously, the guy barely got a contract this year and all the sudden he's the next steve nash or something? People need to quit making the guy into something he's not (same with jack, same with telfair). 

It's not like Blake has a history of being much more htan a decent PG, who is good at what he does, but not great. I'm not saying that Telfair has that history, or that Jack does (or doesn't). I'm just saying that for the love of god, Steve Blake isn't good enough to even contemplate keeping him over jack or telfair. Especially considering his contract situation, and his limited potential (and the fact he's not significantly better than either of the guys he's "ahead" of).

one doesn't have to praise a player to the skies, to actually like him. I like Ha a lot, but I'm not delusional enough to think he'll ever be as good as Yao Ming is.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

worst mod ever said:


> I'm just saying that for the love of god, Steve Blake isn't good enough to even contemplate keeping him over jack or telfair.


Uh-huh, you said that already.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Uh-huh, you said that already.



thats the point of the board. one person says something, another person disagree's and tries to counter. I'm still waiting for someone to counter it other than "oh well, I feel blah blah blah".

I feel does not = how things are.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

wasnt blake the highest vote getter in our team MVP thread?


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> I feel does not = how things are.


...contradicts...



> I'm just saying that for the love of god, Steve Blake isn't good enough to even contemplate keeping him over jack or telfair.


What you feel = how things are. Your opinion is right, any other is just stupid. That's what it seems like you're saying.

Too bad you're wrong in this case.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> and some wonder why the mid range game is missing....average basketball fan nowadays (you) doesnt recognize it or its value


yep. I don't recognize the value of a fundementally sound player...uh huh.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> ...contradicts...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


did I say thats how I feel? It's how things are. 

Honest to god, check out blakes career stats and then remind yourself he's 5 years and 3 years older than two players already on the team who have much better contractual situations. He's not a great player, has never shown the possibility of BEING a great player, and he's not enough better than 2 players who are younger than him to justfiy keeping him.

you ask 30 GM's in this league who'd they keep, Telfair/Jack or Blake...and 30 of them would say jack or telfair over blake.

guy basically was picked up as a *free agent* by the worst team in the league.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

you keep bringing up these number of years .... it would be one thing if blake was 35 yrs old and telfair was 5 or so yrs younger 

and yes you dont see the value in a guy that is a good shooter yet range isnt as consistent out to the 3 point line......not my problem, yours



whatever Smile....you win, its clearly your way or the highway......oh but wait that isnt the purpose of the board now is it.....haha


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> you keep bringing up these number of years .... it would be one thing if blake was 35 yrs old and telfair was 5 or so yrs younger


the maturation stages of a basketball player between 18-22 is incredible. denying that is silly.

you must not understand how the progress of players go than. If after 4 years of college and 3 years of NBA ball a player isn't significantly better than a player who's 2 years out of high school and 1 years removed from college (and both younger) and, here's the kicker, ever shown that he has the capabilities to be anything more than a role player...well, it speaks volumes.


> and yes you dont see the value in a guy that is a good shooter yet range isnt as consistent out to the 3 point line......not my problem, yours


I didn't say that he didn't have value, did I? 

Let's not over inflate that value. It's the same with Travis Outlaw. I like travis, but so far he hasn't show enough to justify not drafting a SF who can be better. Just like Blake hasn't show enough to justify keeping him over two pg's who have a significantly better chance at being better than him.



> whatever Smile....you win, its clearly your way or the highway......oh but wait that isnt the purpose of the board now is it.....haha


[sarcasm] yeah, I'm saying it's my way or the highway [/sarcasm]


aren't you doing exactly what you're accussing me of doing? presenting your side of an argument?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Hap, I never saw you answer these questions before. Do you propose keeping Telfair and Jack and letting Blake go (even as a backup)? If so, are you then proposing that the team let Jack and Telfair fight it out for the starting spot for the next two or so years--then trade the loser and find a new backup PG? Or do you see the loser as being able to accept a backup role?

I just don't see Jack and Telfair coexisting long term.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> did I say thats how I feel? It's how things are.


Thanks for proving my point.

It is NOT "the way things are," it is your OPINION of "the way things are."

Blake is not nearing retirement, no matter what you think. He is the best point guard on the team right now. I see no reason to believe that he has peaked. He the same chance to improve his game as any other player. He's good now, and he could get even better.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Wow - I just got back from work (can't access this site from there) and this thread took a serious nose dive when certain unnamed perpetrators once again turned this thread into a Telfair vs Jack vs Blake thread. :argue: :whatever: 

Man - where's the dicipline on this Board. Why aren't the Mods chewing some poster's buts on this. :curse: :rocket: 

Regardless - the intent was to compare our young PGs to today's highly successful PGs at earlier points in their careers. I gave some examples that I thought were decent matches. And, was hoping other posters would bring in their own types of players. Some of that did happen, but once again it's back to the inter-team comparisons. :boohoo:

BTW: Backboard Cam - that is a friggen hillarious Avatar of Blake morphing to Nash and back.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

southnc said:


> Why aren't the Mods chewing some poster's buts on this.


Its a "Mod" that keeps the **** going.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Reep said:


> Hap, I never saw you answer these questions before. Do you propose keeping Telfair and Jack and letting Blake go (even as a backup)? If so, are you then proposing that the team let Jack and Telfair fight it out for the starting spot for the next two or so years--then trade the loser and find a new backup PG? Or do you see the loser as being able to accept a backup role?
> 
> I just don't see Jack and Telfair coexisting long term.


I'll answer and give you my thoughts at least.

To me, it doesn't really matter if they can coexist long term. If we get too focused on what will work out long term, a winning season will always be three years away. To get back to respectability, we need to increase our overall talent level as soon as we can.

If you acknowledge the point that Jack and Telfair have significantly higher potential than Blake, you might have to acknowlege that Blake is the odd man out simply for the reason of maximizing trade value.

IMO, it's highly doubtful that Blake's trade value could possibly go up after another season of playing alongside two up and coming point guards who will be better next year. His minutes will probably go down and he'll be quickly relegated to the #2 or worse #3 point guard on the team. This would drive his trade value back down to the level of when we picked him up for next to nothing... 

Conversely, Telfair and Jack both will likely improve a lot in the next year. Their trade value right now is more based on potential, which will only buy you so much... until GMs start seeing them play at a higher level, we won't get nearly the return in a trade than you would get by keeping them around for another year of improvement.

So you have Blake whose stock is likely to fall and two young guys who would be undervalued in a trade around the league due to limited playing time and exposure. To me, unless you can get a hell of a deal for one of the younger guys, you trade Blake and hopefully maximize your talent level.

In the future, if one point guard wins out and they cannot coexist, you trade the one you like the least. If they both are too good to be backups, then all of a sudden, you have a young, solid starting PG to trade, which is a lot more value than they have now. Then what do you do for a backup? Sign another Steve Blake for the league minimum...

I actually think they have a pretty good shot of co-existing together. I could really see Jack as a Bobby Jackson type combo guard coming off of the bench for Martell and Telfair providing a spark of high energy, hard-nosed play.

If Jack wins the starting spot, I think Telfair would be trade bait - I'm not sure if he has the mentality to come off the bench and be an Earl Boykins...


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

southnc said:


> Regardless - the intent was to compare our young PGs to today's highly successful PGs at earlier points in their careers. I gave some examples that I thought were decent matches. And, was hoping other posters would bring in their own types of players. Some of that did happen, but once again it's back to the inter-team comparisons. :boohoo:


I don't mean to be a jerk, but people are going to talk about what they want to talk about. I like your intentions, but if you want to keep that line of conversation going, keep bringing in more data.

Just telling me what to talk about doesn't really do anything for me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> It is NOT "the way things are," it is your OPINION of "the way things are."
> 
> Blake is not nearing retirement, no matter what you think. He is the best point guard on the team right now. I see no reason to believe that he has peaked. He the same chance to improve his game as any other player. He's good now, and he could get even better.



why are you acting like I said he's close to retirement?

he could get better, but to act like because steve nash had simliar stats now (which isn't accurate actually) and somehow that means **** in relation to blake (as comparing any "good" PG currently, and their early stats to any of the 3 PG's doesn't mean anything) is meaningless.

Blake hasn't shown he's capable of being Steve Nash. He's shown that he's a reliable so-so PG, on a really really REALLY ****ty team.

after 4 years of college. 

get real here. Blake isn't all the sudden going to start being something different than he has for the last 7 years of playing organized ball. The fact that you seem to think otherwise isn't something any of us can control..however the facts and stats that he's put up are something that we can control (in asmuch as we can point them out).

The guy averaged a *high* of 11 points per game in college. his career stats from the floor in college was 40%. That means he didn't shoot that well.

it means he's not _that_ good.

and if by the time Telfair is 25 years old (or jack for that matter) if hes putting up pedestrian stats like blake is, I'll be greatly dissapointed in both of them.

the fact that the two of them aren't that far behind him, and they're much younger, speaks volumes.

****, Jack averaged 1.5 less points, in 6 less minutes....as a rookie.

if after this much time blake is already at a level on par with two guys much younger, doesn't that seem to tell you something? that even if he improves, it's not likely that he's going to all the sudden find a lot more to his game that will make it significantly better?


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> I'll answer and give you my thoughts at least.
> 
> To me, it doesn't really matter if they can coexist long term. If we get too focused on what will work out long term, a winning season will always be three years away. To get back to respectability, we need to increase our overall talent level as soon as we can.


I think this is true, but I get the sence that some on the board aren't considering that there three guys here who want to start. This three-headed PG can't last forever, and is really a waste of talent as we can only really develop one at a time. None of them is going to develop as they should if all three are retained. If value can be returned, I'm in favor of moving any one of them. 

I would really like to see Jack play for at least one more year without the ankle injury. I would really like to see if Blake could play a whole season with the scoring confidence he showed in several games last year. I also wouldn't mind seeing if Sebastian can continue to learn how to run a team and work on his ability to either avoid traffic at the rim (floater) or learn how to finish in a crowd. But watching all three of them split the PG minutes is something I hope doesn't happen.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I think SMiLE's missing the boat, look at the facts:

Nash is 6'3" tall, white and named Steve.
Blake is 6'3" tall, white and named Steve, I smell an MVP.

Personally though, I think this guy should be our PG of the future:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Verro said:


> I think SMiLE's missing the boat, look at the facts:
> 
> Nash is 6'3" tall, white and named Steve.
> Blake is 6'3" tall, white and named Steve, I smell an MVP.
> ...


 :biggrin:


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Reep said:


> I think this is true, but I get the sence that some on the board aren't considering that there three guys here who want to start. This three-headed PG can't last forever, and is really a waste of talent as we can only really develop one at a time. None of them is going to develop as they should if all three are retained. If value can be returned, I'm in favor of moving any one of them.
> 
> I would really like to see Jack play for at least one more year without the ankle injury. I would really like to see if Blake could play a whole season with the scoring confidence he showed in several games last year. I also wouldn't mind seeing if Sebastian can continue to learn how to run a team and work on his ability to either avoid traffic at the rim (floater) or learn how to finish in a crowd. But watching all three of them split the PG minutes is something I hope doesn't happen.


I fully agree that we shouldn't keep all three... I think that is the worst route to take in terms of maximizing our trade assets and overall talent level.

I've told you why I think trading Steve is the best option to go, but I can understand why other people would feel differently.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> Blake hasn't shown he's capable of being Steve Nash. He's shown that he's a reliable so-so PG, on a really really REALLY ****ty team.


I would argue that he is the best PG, on a really ***ty team. :biggrin: 



SMiLE said:


> The guy averaged a *high* of 11 points per game in college. his career stats from the floor in college was 40%. That means he didn't shoot that well.


Even though I like Blake, I don't believe that he will ever become Nash. But, in the spirit of this thread, and your unbelief that Blake has much upside, let's be accurate about his college stats.

Sr. year in college

Blake shot 41% from the floor and 42% from the arc (also averaged 7.1 assists)
Nash shot 43% from the floor and 34% from the arc (averaged 6.0 assits)

How is it that Blake can be considered to not shoot well in college, if Nash was considered a good shooter? Shooting more does not mean shooting better--especially on a team with more talent. I think the biggest difference between Nash and Blake is confidence. If Blake could develop more of that I think he could become a very good PG in this league.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I think that everyone is not realizing that Nash is a special once in a lifetime type player and his stats simply can not be compared to Blake. What about comparing him to someone whos career hasnt panned out as well as Nash.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I think Blake is a good shooter, but I don't think he's a very good scorer and that's where he drops off in comparisons to players like Nash.

Nash can create his own shot, while Blake can capitalize on what the defense gives him.

Hey, no problem, not everyone can be Steve Nash, but I don't think Blake has near the future that some are pining for...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> Even though I like Blake, I don't believe that he will ever become Nash. But, in the spirit of this thread, and your unbelief that Blake has much upside, let's be accurate about his college stats.
> 
> Sr. year in college
> 
> ...


so you make the claim to be accurate in his college states, how about you take the *career* stats, not 1 year.

because I'll point out that not only did Nash average 6 assists, but 17 points. which gets his team more points than what blake did.

I'll point out that Nash's freshman year he averaged as many ppg as Blake did basically for his whole *career*.




> Shooting more does not mean shooting better--especially on a team with more talent. I think the biggest difference between Nash and Blake is confidence. If Blake could develop more of that I think he could become a very good PG in this league.


if blake could develop a lot of things he could be a decent PG. not a 'very good one'.

it's doubtful any of the guys we have will develop into a 'very good' PG. Just that Jack and Telfair stand a significantly better shot at becoming good PG's than blake does.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think that everyone is not realizing that Nash is a special once in a lifetime type player and his stats simply can not be compared to Blake. What about comparing him to someone whos career hasnt panned out as well as Nash.



Good point. I'm a Blake fan but haven't jumped in because I cringe when comparing Blake to Nash . . . that just isn't fair (Nash is a two time MVP and agrubly one of the top ten PGs in history).


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

OH MY GOD!!!!!!!.....ridiculous

i never compared Steve Blake and Steve Nash......that is Smile once again spinning (must work for Fox News) what i said into somethin else

i brought up Nash as an example of who when you solely judge and decide who to keep based on physical attributes would be passed over despite clearly being the best PG in the game today


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

riehldeal said:


> OH MY GOD!!!!!!!.....ridiculous
> 
> i never compared Steve Blake and Steve Nash......that is Smile once again spinning (must work for Fox News) what i said into somethin else
> 
> i brought up Nash as an example of who when you solely judge and decide who to keep based on physical attributes would be passed over despite clearly being the best PG in the game today



Wasn't your post in particular that I was referring to. I was just skimming throught the thread and saw Nash's name keep popping up and my thought is Nash, whatever his stats, is the exception to the rule.

Like I said, I like Blake. In fact, I'm not big on pointing to stats when trying to prove who is better . . . especially at the point guard position. Forget stats, all fans here are big Blazer fans and have had ample opportunity to observe Telfair and Blake and make their own evaluation. 

IMO Blake was by far the most solid of the three this season with Jack being second. Telfair has a lot of flash and qucikness that intrigues me, but his chances to develop into a good PG is no higher than the other two. I don't think the Blazers should hesitate to trade any of them if the right trade came along. It's been said before and I agree, when you are the worst team in the league, no one is untochable. If a team wants to offer something based on Telfair's potential, Jack's toughness or Blake's stableness, you got to listen.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i agree


IMO...between Telfair and Blake, you trade the one that will get you the most in return when packaged with either darius or zach


and my frustration about the nash-blake thing wasnt about your post......it was the fact that such a discussion resulted from Smile's blatant spin tactics


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> i agree
> 
> 
> IMO...between Telfair and Blake, you trade the one that will get you the most in return when packaged with either darius or zach
> ...


heh, Im the bill o'rielly of the board! righteous! (if you know the irony of your post, you'd chuckle)..

hey, maybe I should write john nash an email condemning zach.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

how is my post ironic.....and why wouldnt you just say why its ironic rather than waitin for me to clearly wonder why and ask.....you like little BOY games dont you ?



as for the final comment of your post......lets just say that i would love for you to say that to my face.......




*edit* and for those who may feel my last comment is uncalled for......well i felt Smile's remark was equally uncalled for


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

Hap, you need to step down as a moderator (again?). I can't remember you ever moderating anything.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

forget that

i wanna hear how my post is ironic


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> how is my post ironic.....and why wouldnt you just say why its ironic rather than waitin for me to clearly wonder why and ask.....you like little BOY games dont you ?


ironic in the sense I hate fox news.

jeesh, whats with the 'little boy games' jab?



> as for the final comment of your post......lets just say that i would love for you to say that to my face.......


what are you, 16? 

"say it to my face, buster!"

im not sure what you're getting at. someone at fox news would've done that. so Im saying maybe I should. since I apparently work for fox news or "spin things"



> *edit* and for those who may feel my last comment is uncalled for......well i felt Smile's remark was equally uncalled for


we're "big boys" here, I think we can handle a little fun in a post


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Hap, you need to step down as a moderator (again?). I can't remember you ever moderating anything.


nope, never moderate nuttin. infact, I get complaints all the time that I don't moderate enough.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> nope, never moderate nuttin. infact, I get complaints all the time that I don't moderate enough.


Editing/merging posts is not moderating. 

Insulting other posters is also not moderating.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Backboard Cam said:


> Editing/merging posts is not moderating.
> 
> Insulting other posters is also not moderating.


who's insulting posters?

please point that out. better yet, collect those insults up and forward them to a CM.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

yeah i am 16, right!

dont make a comment like you did and then retreat into oh we all like a little fun and whats with the little boy jab.....dont say somethin and then not be able to take anything back

for the record= both you and me know you spun around some of the things i said in this thread 


i am gonna go ahead and agree to disagree with you because debating with you is like pulling teeth


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

..........wow! wait you are a moderator.........LOL LOL

are you kidding

what was the clear attempt to bait me with the zach comment


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> yeah i am 16, right!


what I mean is, anyone who pulls the "say that to my face" routine, seems to be losing a grasp on how important or unimportant a comment made on here is.



> dont make a comment like you did and then retreat into oh we all like a little fun and whats with the little boy jab.....dont say somethin and then not be able to take anything back


so it's ok for you to say I work for fox news, etc, and I "spin things", but you can't take a little jab in return?

so it's ok for you to throw a jibe, but not me? whats good for you ain't good for me?



> for the record= both you and me know you spun around some of the things i said in this thread
> 
> 
> i am gonna go ahead and agree to disagree with you because debating with you is like pulling teeth


ok


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> I think that everyone is not realizing that Nash is a special once in a lifetime type player and his stats simply can not be compared to Blake. What about comparing him to someone whos career hasnt panned out as well as Nash.


I don't think people are comparing Blake to Nash...Just that Nash proves that players like Blake can have coming out party later in their careers, especially point guards.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Backboard Cam said:


> Steve, some fans do like you _and _ Telfair.


Agreed. Admittedly my feelings about Telfair changed after watching _Through the Fire_ and watching him play a little more closely when able. I have nothing against the kid (and he's a kid) and I don't want it construed that I dislike Telfair because I have "terp" in my name and openly admit to having a bias towards Blake -- what do you expect here? I've watched the guy play for years, he was part of a team whose accomplishments at Maryland were extraordinary and may stand alone for a while.

I hate that I'm resigned that Blake is probably going to go but at the end of the day that's probably what's going to happen and I'm going to own it up to simply "it's a business." That's what the NBA is, and if it's not sound business for the Blazers to keep Blake around despite what he brings to the team, so be it.

Is that smart? I don't know, we'll see in the long run.

Do I think he's gonna become Stevie Nash (who was sort of a late bloomer)? Probably not, they're entirely different gentlemen who play the same position (although BBCam's unintentionally creepy Blake/Nash avatar makes me want to Photoshop an Adam Morrison wig onto Blake's "I'm not really a Marine I just cut my hair like one" head).


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree with Blazer Ringbearer 

trade blake


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

why cant people just state their opinions n be happy

watching all this backwards n forwards pissing contest just reminds why i come here nowhere near as often as i used too - when it was fun to contribute without having to justify breathing.....

3 words guys 

let 

it 

go


so many things here become personal , and it turns into some kind of vendetta to have the last word and be seen to be right - well guys , its all opinions and every is allowed one - so quit hijacking the thread n let out a few deep breaths huh


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i apologize...sorry


----------

