# Blazers @ Rockets Game Thread



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Jack will get the start (ugh). Let's hope for a better game tonight.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Drexler doing color commentary on NBA TV? Nice!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Hopefully the Blazers can have the better PG play tonight...Raefer Alston's looked terrible in that first game I saw him.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Jack is still sucking it up. Don't run into 4 defenders in the key and try a pass in the air. DUHHHHH


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Blazer Guards: Attack The Damn Basket. More clunkers. Its as if the blazers are taking a shot too early.....bad shot selection...throwing it up there.

Honestly, we're lucky to have 4 points up there. Martell had that long 2 and Pryzbilla had a small scoop shot.

15-4 Houston


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Leading Scorer: Joel Pryzbilla. 


DE-RICK RO-OSE

Jack: Not doing anything
Roy: Seems to take a while to warm up lately
Martell: Not getting the ball
Aldridge: Struggling with his post moves...maybe start off with jumpshots?
PRYZ- Pl;aying nicely on both ends


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Blake, Frye and Jones in.

Are we going to break 10 points this qurater? 6 points with 3 min. left


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Martell gets yanked after one turnover, yet Jack still remains. Deja vu? Nate is clueless.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Blazers still running the Zone Defense.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

haha...commercial...JJ Reddick: The Best Shooter in Basketball History!!!!!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> Jack is still sucking it up. Don't run into 4 defenders in the key and try a pass in the air. DUHHHHH


actually he should have shot that, but it was partially aldridge's fault for not looking for the pass. otherwise jack didn't do anything wrong - except he should be looking to score more.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

By this time last year we'd give up on moving the ball around to get a shot and just give it to Zach inside to get points which he would. Then he'd get blame for hogging the ball.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

But this year hopefully we'll learn to work our way out of it instead.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

yay. 10 points. Tacos for all!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> actually he should have shot that, but it was partially aldridge's fault for not looking for the pass. otherwise jack didn't do anything wrong - except he should be looking to score more.


he was surrounded. Yao ming was ready to send that right back into his face.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

BLAKE with two straight shots! Season MVP baby!!!!

We're lucky to only be down 11.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> Drexler doing color commentary on NBA TV? Nice!


NBA TV just picks up local broadcasts. Drexler does color commentary for Houston.

Ed O.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> he was surrounded. Yao ming was ready to send that right back into his face.



after he drove yeah. he had room for a short pullup. aldridge was uncovered and just stood there.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

hee hee duck game flippage


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I know three straight road games to start the year is tough, and I had low expectations for the team coming into town, but man... we look terrible.

Does anyone watch this team and SERIOUSLY think we're better without Zach? The Rockets aren't even bothering to run another person at LA, and he's being guarded by... Chuck Smith.

It's sort of scary that this team is healthy. What happens if Roy/Aldridge/Joel/some combo thereof get hurt again? Eek.

Ed O.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Gettin' KILLED out there. Inside and outside this time.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

22% shooting does not work. 

WHY DO WE HAVE 2 POINT GUARDS OUT THERE NOW????? THAT DOES NOT WORK. EVER. Confusion as who is actually running the offense out there.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Jack in for Green. This is getting annoying. Where the EFF is Sergio?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Does anyone watch this team and SERIOUSLY think we're better without Zach? The Rockets aren't even bothering to run another person at LA, and he's being guarded by... Chuck Smith.



i think we will be by the end of the year. right now the whole team is playing flat and having confidence/chemistry issues. that will improve a lot. doesn't help that nate isn't sure who he wants to play.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Whoever bought season tickets got boned. I'm glad I didn't.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Webster playing well. Agressive. Good to see.


----------



## More (Sep 3, 2006)

How come Rodriguez is behind Green in the rotation after scoring 8 points, dishing 2 assists and having 2 rebounds yesterday in 12 minutes?:azdaja:


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

I can't believe Martell is our only bright spot. Looks like he's made good on his promise before the season to be the starting small forward this year.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wow...teh Pacers had 72 points in the first half!!!!! compare that to our 23 points with 3 min. left

Mike Dunleavy for MIP!!!!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Aldridge looks terrible out there. No good post moves at all so far.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Bonzi gets triple teamed.....then GETS HIS OWN REBOUND for the AND1. SAD.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think the Blazers need some home cooking. Hopefully next Wednesday will be a different story.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Where's Przybilla?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

3 on 2 fast break, Jarret Jack with the charge. ARRRGY!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> Where's Przybilla?


Nate took him out for taking that ill advised 3 at the end of the 1st. 

He's in there now.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Why did the Blazers NOT go for the 2 for 1???? They had 40 seconds left and let the clock drain and Roy took the shot with 24 left.......


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

oh well. 


gO dUCkS :worthy:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

wow....Mavs have 71 in the first half too! Sad we can't even get HALF that.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

James Jones seems like an "agressive defender".


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I know three straight road games to start the year is tough, and I had low expectations for the team coming into town, but man... we look terrible.
> 
> *Does anyone watch this team and SERIOUSLY think we're better without Zach?* The Rockets aren't even bothering to run another person at LA, and he's being guarded by... Chuck Smith.
> 
> ...


I thought we made a bad trade, but not having a healthy Oden does change the team quite a bit.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> wow....Mavs have 71 in the first half too! Sad we can't even get HALF that.


because we're not playing the kings?


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Houston only scored 46pts? Is the defense playing better or what? I don't have the game.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

RoyToy said:


> Houston only scored 46pts? Is the defense playing better or what? I don't have the game.



actually since the first 5-6 minutes the blazers have played decent defense - swarming and reacting well. just can't hit a shot to save their lives.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> because we're not playing the kings?



uhhh...and they're the mavs?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

RoyToy said:


> Houston only scored 46pts? Is the defense playing better or what? I don't have the game.


They're toying with us. They seem to be scoring at will.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> uhhh...and they're the mavs?


yes they are. and they likely wouldn't be scoring 71 in a half against the rockets.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

yuyuza1 said:


> They're toying with us. They seem to be scoring at will.


what game are you watching? the rockets only scored around 27-29 pts in the last 18 minutes of play.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Blazers looking MUCH better.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> yes they are. and they likely wouldn't be scoring 71 in a half against the rockets.


sure they will, they're the mavs.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

With Jack out and Blake in, they're actually feeding the post and running the offense from there instead of delaying and waiting for the clock to run down


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

8 point game baby!

Roy, Frye and Webster stepping it up. Nice block and defense by LMA.....good offensive Rebound (FOUL though) by Martell


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> With Jack out and Blake in, they're actually feeding the post and running the offense from there instead of delaying and waiting for the clock to run down



that's because roy is playing point.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> that's because roy is playing point.


uhh..Blake is mainly.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Offensive flow looks so much better when shots are going in. Good run.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

like Martell's hustle out there...he is making minor mistakes here and there, but that's ok. BIG change in his game where he used to just camp at the 3 point line. 

Good to see.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Martell, LMA and ROY all out.

In is Jack, Jones and Pryz


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Jack is in, again.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

I had no idea this game was on KGW. Was this game moved to KGW?

I guess I'll join in on the misery.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Martell, LMA and ROY all out.
> 
> In is Jack, Jones and Pryz



Either Nate is giving up or he can't judge his players' play.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Outlaw looks totally lost there too. He had an open jumper....then dribbled INTO Rockets Defenders and took a shot. WTF.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

FREE McBOB!!!!


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Jack with the jumper, and Joel with a good sacrifice of his body.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Jarrett Jack ~ when you absolutely have to get the #1 pick two years in a row, accept no substitutes...


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Hah....blake back in...looks like Brandon will stop just taking the jumpers himself! notice the change in offense with Jack vs. Blake. 

Jack needs to ride pine badly


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Looking at the box score, two really big stats stand out:

16 to 6 turnover disadvantage.
And 18 to 8 disadvantage in assists.

GIVE SERGIO A CHANCE!

iWatas


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

What's the fans chant?

We want _____ ?


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Xericx said:


> What's the fans chant?
> 
> We want _____ ?



Steve, as in Steve Francis.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

i must say, i'm quite unimpressed with the Rockets. I've seen this game and the Lakers-Rockets game and I think they have some glaring weaknesses with on the floor leadership at the point. I don't think Raefer Alston is their answer.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

yuyuza1 said:


> Steve, as in Steve Francis.



he may be what they need?????

Dunno...they're missing something


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Xericx said:


> i must say, i'm quite unimpressed with the Rockets. I've seen this game and the Lakers-Rockets game and I think they have some glaring weaknesses with on the floor leadership at the point. I don't think Raefer Alston is their answer.



maybe they're playing down to our level


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Brandon ROY. THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!! Take it to the hole!


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> maybe they're playing down to our level


perhaps. maybe against the lakers too. but good teams that want to get out of the first round don't do this.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Well, atleast they didn't give up 100+ points.

Still, this team needs a lot of work. 

I think they need to shake up the starting line-up. You just can't keep playing from huge deficets, like they've been doing in the last couple of games.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

i know +/- doesn't mean much but frye +7, joel -20 really stands out.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

Xericx said:


> Brandon ROY. THAT IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!!!! Take it to the hole!


lol calm down man that was a nice play but the game was over by then


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

the +/- 's dont mean crap.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

We suck.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

blue32 said:


> the +/- 's dont mean crap.



not normally, but it did look like things opened up a little for us on offense with frye in and joel out.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> We suck.


we're not good, but it's way too early to say we suck. unless you want to say that the bulls suck too.

we definitely suck with jack playing point. it's sad since he has the skills to do so much better, but it doesn't look like it's ever gonna happen on this team.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

Bench Jack! The guy kills our team when he's on the floor.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> i know +/- doesn't mean much but frye +7, joel -20 really stands out.


I was at the pre-season game in Redmond when Nate tried playing Frye at Center to start the 2nd half. Denver went on about a 20-0 run. It was truly the most glaring mistake in the game and the only time we didn't look competitive.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> we're not good, but it's way too early to say we suck.


We've sucked consistently for 3 years now.

When CAN I say we suck?:azdaja:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> We've sucked consistently for 3 years now.
> 
> When CAN I say we suck?:azdaja:



if we can't bounce back in our home opener against a team we've already played i'll allow it :biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> I was at the pre-season game in Redmond when Nate tried playing Frye at Center to start the 2nd half. Denver went on about a 20-0 run. It was truly the most glaring mistake in the game and the only time we didn't look competitive.




yeah he's not a center. but frye playing with aldridge functioning as the center (depending on matchups) might end up working best for this team, since it seemed to open the middle a little. it's too easy for joel's man (as in yao in the first quarter tonight) to sag, cheat, clog the middle etc.


----------



## Sonny-Canzano (Oct 20, 2007)

We need some toughness, I know it's early, but Brendon Haywood is tearing it up and would be a perfect fit next to LMA.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> We've sucked consistently for 3 years now.
> 
> When CAN I say we suck?:azdaja:


Silence infidel! Don't you understand? We only sucked because of Zach. Zach is gone, ergo, we are now a much better team.  


Oh well.......how about them DUCKS!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

For all those posters who were wondering what the Blazers were doing stocking up on all those point guards (myself included), I think we have the answer.

Tell me about this Kopenhagen kid again.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Yeah, we are definitely looking like the worst team in the NBA right now. Other than the Spurs game, we haven't even been in these games. I've said Jack wasn't a good fit, he just cannot run a fastbreak to save his life. 

Thank god this draft is the year of the PG.


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

Blazer Freak said:


> Yeah, we are definitely looking like the worst team in the NBA right now. Other than the Spurs game, we haven't even been in these games. I've said Jack wasn't a good fit, he just cannot run a fastbreak to save his life.
> 
> Thank god this draft is the year of the PG.


Other than Rose and Mayo who is there? Is Mayo the person we would want running the point?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I know three straight road games to start the year is tough, and I had low expectations for the team coming into town, but man... we look terrible.
> 
> Does anyone watch this team and SERIOUSLY think we're better without Zach? The Rockets aren't even bothering to run another person at LA, and he's being guarded by... Chuck Smith.
> 
> ...


His name is chuck hayes and he actually a very good man defender


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Tell me about this Kopenhagen kid again.


Ah, the Kopenhagen Kid. His game is up to snuff, for sure. He can dribble all day, in a pinch. It might not be pretty, but he produces a lot. You wouldn't want to keep him sitting on your bench. He leaves it on the hardwood. He might not be great on defense, but he certainly is on the offensive side. 

Can I stop now?

barfo


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

It is simple as to why the Blazers have lost the last few games. They are a young team and have not put a whole game together yet. They have put together a quarter or two here and there, but not a full game. The thing to look at is that with each game, the team struggled early, and that started to figure things out later. That is what young teams do, sometimes they have to figure out that they can play, but they have to learn how to go about it against the various matchups. Last night you could tell by the end of the game that Lamarcus and Brandon had gained a level of being comfortable against Houston. The one bad quarter was too much to overcome though. 

So what I look for, is for improvement, and we will know if they are getting it when they replay these teams later. Such as on opening night I believe we get the Hornets again. It is a perfect opportunity for the guys to put what they learned from game 1 against them to use, and show they are improving.

Lastly: Rick Adelman still doesn't know when to call a time out to save his life. It's his only fault, letting the opposition run off too many points in a row before he tries to stem the tide.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Ah, the Kopenhagen Kid. His game is up to snuff, for sure. He can dribble all day, in a pinch. It might not be pretty, but he produces a lot. You wouldn't want to keep him sitting on your bench. He leaves it on the hardwood. He might not be great on defense, but he certainly is on the offensive side.
> 
> Can I stop now?


You forgot to mention that he is a bad locker room guy... he's a bit of a cancer.

Ed O.


----------



## Gunner (Sep 16, 2005)

Ed O said:


> You forgot to mention that he is a bad locker room guy... he's a bit of a cancer.
> 
> Ed O.


Yeah,the mouthy type.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> if we can't bounce back in our home opener against a team we've already played i'll allow it :biggrin:


Nice to have something to look forward to.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

barfo said:


> Ah, the Kopenhagen Kid. His game is up to snuff, for sure. He can dribble all day, in a pinch. It might not be pretty, but he produces a lot. You wouldn't want to keep him sitting on your bench. He leaves it on the hardwood. He might not be great on defense, but he certainly is on the offensive side.
> 
> Can I stop now?
> 
> barfo


Why should he be the butt of your jokes?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Pimped Out said:


> His name is chuck hayes and he actually a very good man defender


I spaced it... I blame the stroke I had on Tuesday.

He's a good man defender. He's also 5+ inches shorter than LA and not an elite defensive player. There's no way he would effectively guard top post presences one-on-one.

I've been reading all off-season about how Aldridge would draw doubles the same way Zach did, and while I think he might SOMEDAY, clearly that day is not now.

Ed O.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Aldridge admitted in the post-game interviews (see today's game wrap-up at OregonLive.com) that he needs to expand his game. Instead of JUST being an inside player (like he was in games 1 and 2) or JUST being an outside player (most of last season), LaMarcus admitted needing to find a balance between the two. It's all part of his growing pains.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> Aldridge admitted in the post-game interviews (see today's game wrap-up at OregonLive.com) that he needs to expand his game. Instead of JUST being an inside player (like he was in games 1 and 2) or JUST being an outside player (most of last season), LaMarcus admitted needing to find a balance between the two. It's all part of his growing pains.


To clarify my position: this is fair. I don't blame Aldridge for anything. He is young (only 22, remember), he's talented, and he's going to improve. As long as he stays relatively healthy? He's going to emerge as a force in the NBA.

But right now? He's not as good as Zach Randolph. He cannot be plugged into the spot that Zach assumed in the offense without a drop off for the team. I don't think that these three games are at all a fluke, and I think a lot of the heat that's being directed at the PGs is misguided. The team just isn't very good right now because the players aren't very good. Jack is part of that, but he's not the main part IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

I don't think I'm ready to concede that Randolph is better than Aldridge, if that's the point you are making. In these first three games, Aldridge is not close to being the offensive force that Zach was, but he's played much better defense than Randolph would have.

I think our main weakness has been in our perimeter defense and turnovers- it's been non-existent from both our point guards and shooting guards. Webster, on the other hand, has played some decent D at the small forward spot.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> But right now? He's not as good as Zach Randolph. He cannot be plugged into the spot that Zach assumed in the offense without a drop off for the team. I don't think that these three games are at all a fluke, and I think a lot of the heat that's being directed at the PGs is misguided. The team just isn't very good right now because the players aren't very good. Jack is part of that, but he's not the main part IMO.


I think that Aldridge is almost as good on offense as Zach is now and better on D - but what you see is the growing pains of faster pace with a young team. There was a reason the Blazers played as slow as they did with Zach in the lineup - it minimized turn-overs, it kept the score low so the team was within striking distance and it helped mask Zach's in-effectiveness in a fast pace game.

At some point Nate and his crew need to see if this young team is able to grow and become better at running the faster pace. If it does - it was worth all the trouble in this rebuilding year. If not - there is a need to consider a change in some of the roster.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

hasoos said:


> It is simple as to why the Blazers have lost the last few games. They are a young team and have not put a whole game together yet. They have put together a quarter or two here and there, but not a full game. The thing to look at is that with each game, the team struggled early, and that started to figure things out later. That is what young teams do, sometimes they have to figure out that they can play, but they have to learn how to go about it against the various matchups. Last night you could tell by the end of the game that Lamarcus and Brandon had gained a level of being comfortable against Houston. The one bad quarter was too much to overcome though.
> 
> So what I look for, is for improvement, and we will know if they are getting it when they replay these teams later. Such as on opening night I believe we get the Hornets again. It is a perfect opportunity for the guys to put what they learned from game 1 against them to use, and show they are improving.
> 
> Lastly: Rick Adelman still doesn't know when to call a time out to save his life. It's his only fault, letting the opposition run off too many points in a row before he tries to stem the tide.



Wait a minute. Weren't you preaching how much better this team played without Zach last year and how they were always playing hard and winning or competing harder in games when Zach wasn't playing.

But now that they are getting blown out without Zach, it is becasue they are young and don't know how to play four quarters . . . I thought the whole reason you liked this roster was because they are young and play hard for 48 minutes.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I think that Aldridge is almost as good on offense as Zach is now and better on D - but what you see is the growing pains of faster pace with a young team. There was a reason the Blazers played as slow as they did with Zach in the lineup - it minimized turn-overs, it kept the score low so the team was within striking distance and it helped mask Zach's in-effectiveness in a fast pace game.
> 
> At some point Nate and his crew need to see if this young team is able to grow and become better at running the faster pace. If it does - it was worth all the trouble in this rebuilding year. If not - there is a need to consider a change in some of the roster.


Nate consistently played a slow pace without Zach in Seattle... putting the reason for the slow pace at Zach's feet is laughable to me. Or was he slowing it down because Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis were ineffective in a fast paced game, too?

As for Aldridge being "almost as good on offense as Zach": where is the evidence? He hasn't been able to consistently draw double teams (so opponents don't seem to agree with you) and he hasn't been able to exploit the one-on-one coverage, either.

Ed O.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Agreed. We played slow because that's how Nate likes it.

Zach ran before Nate was here and he said he wished he'd get to play with Sergio because he liked to play a faster game.

We pounded the ball into Zach continually because that's how Nate likes it.

Zach has a great perimeter-and-in game but Nate took it away reducing us to a one-trick-team.

Now we're apparently something less than that.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Nate consistently played a slow pace without Zach in Seattle... putting the reason for the slow pace at Zach's feet is laughable to me. Or was he slowing it down because Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis were ineffective in a fast paced game, too?


I do not know what Zach has to do with Seattle. Any offense that features Zach Randolph as it's focal point is not going to be fast paced. He is not the athletic player that out-runs his opposition coast to coast and he has often got the ball, stopped for 4 seconds to survey the situation and decide how to attack. This has nothing to do with Seattle or Nate - Zach is who Zach is - and a major cog in a fast paced offense he is not. The only times you saw Zach finishing on the break was when he neglected to make it past the half-court on D and the opposing team blew a 5 on 4 situation.

As for Aldridge being almost as good as Zach on offense - his offensive production when given minutes as a starter - if we include last year's 2nd half - is comparable to Zach's while being more efficient and no dominating the ball (He scored more points that Zach this year, fwiw). The place where Zach still out-shines him is in consistency - which is the reason I said that he is almost as good as and not as good or better than.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

MARIS61 said:


> Zach ran before Nate was here and he said he wished he'd get to play with Sergio because he liked to play a faster game.


Zach was not the focal point of the offense when the team ran. It featured a player like Rasheed Wallace that can play in a fast paced offense. As for Zach saying he wished to play fast - he also said that he was not going to be a distraction and get in off-court trouble - what does this have to do with the facts?


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

RoyToy said:


> Other than Rose and Mayo who is there? Is Mayo the person we would want running the point?


There is Jerryd Bayless, Arizona. I'm really high on him. And yeah, I'd take Mayo. Things have been blown out of porportion and even KP said that now that we have such strong character we can take a chance on a player.


----------

