# Draft Brandon Roy?



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Perhaps the Blazers should select Brandon Roy. His stock has been rising and he is now ranked on draftexpress as the 6th pick. Last night in round one of the big dance he scored 28 pts with 4 of 7 from 3pt along with 3 reb, 5 ast, 3 stls, and 1 block. 

He is truly an everything man at 6'6" 215lbs. he can play SG, SF, PG, and even a little PF although SG is his strongest position. He is a team player. His season stats are 34min 20pts 5.6reb 4.2ast 1.4stl .8blk 2.3TO on 51.4%FG 81.6%FT and 40.9%3pt. 

The two big knocks against him have been his distance shooting, although he seems to be doing pretty well this year, and sometimes he tends to be a little too much of a team player although he has been a lot more agressive for his own score this year. 

I am starting to think that he might be an excellent selection for the blazers. He is a tall counterpart with mad ball handling skills to partner up with Telfair. Webster is a toss up if he is a SG or SF, and Roy can play either so whichever Webster is not, is what Roy would play. He can play inside and outside and is an excellent defender. 

Did you hear that? He is an excellent defender.

Let me repeat. He is an excellent defender.

He really has a great all around game.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Agreed at this point I would place Roy above almost anyone other then Morrison...his all-around game impresses me. I would certainly rather draft Roy then Bargani or Gay.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

depends on who is gone by the time the Blazers pick. If the Blazers don't have a top 4 pick, and the guys we all argue about are gone, he wouldn't be a bad choice.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Hap said:


> depends on who is gone by the time the Blazers pick. If the Blazers don't have a top 4 pick, and the guys we all argue about are gone, he wouldn't be a bad choice.


True..I also believe he would be ready to play a much more substantial role then Bargani, Gay or Aldridge.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I agree with you on many aspects of his game, but I have only got to see him play twice. The thing I like about his game is that he likes to play the physical game. What don't I like about that part of his game? That same issue. I have some reservations because I have seen many players like Glenn Robinson, Lou Roe, Gary Trent and others who come into the league as a powerful 6'6"-ish type who likes to play on the inside, and when they get into the NBA where the inside is filled with 7 footers and they can't play their game. Fortunately for him he has some good outside shooting to go with his inside game.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I just can't judge Bargani, but I would rather have Roy then Aldridge and maybe Gay. I think I might even prefer him over Morrison because they are both leaders and great on the offencive end(edge to Morrison) but Roy is an excellent defender whereas Morrison is OK at best.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

I think Roy has all the tools to be a solid NBA player for many years. He should be able to fit in and play right away and would be a fine addition to the Blazers.

I'm not sure if he has the "it" factor that Morrison has: the ability to take over a game and be the focal point of a team. This team needs a vocal leader. I think Roy would more than likely be a Richard Jefferson type: a great 2nd or 3rd option, but not a #1 guy.

Either way: Morrison or Roy would be a great improvement over Miles/Outlaw/VK.

It comes down to the lottery: if we get the 1-2-3, we draft Morrison.

If we fall to the 4-5-6, we draft Roy.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Nice to know that even if we don't finish with better than the 4th pick in the draft - there are still talented players to add.

Our team needs real studs though, and no more projects or average/maybe players.

If they can't add a stud - trade the pick away. Whoever we add - must break into our top 8 rotation. Otherwise - why add anyone. We've got great bench type players, promising, with potential, etc.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

Yes, Roy over Gay but not Aldridge

the kid is uber athletic and longer than long at 6'11 with freakish wing span
solid 18 foot jumper and a multiple array of low post moves

if Aldridge and Morrison are gone then i would like us to trade down a couple spots (if say we have the #3 pick and those two are gone 1-2) and snag Roy cause even with his performance last night and rising stock I dont think he will go top 5, rather #6-8


IMO


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Texas plays tonight, I would recommend watching the game if it is on, as there are several potential 1st round picks playing.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> Our team needs real studs though, and no more projects or average/maybe players.


Did you see Morrison play last night? Could he be that kind of guy for us?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Did you see Morrison play last night? Could he be that kind of guy for us?


The desire to take control of a team or a game is innate, it cannot be learned. Morrison has that innate quality. This team needs that quality in order to succeed.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Blazer Maven said:


> The desire to take control of a team or a game is innate, it cannot be learned. Morrison has that innate quality. This team needs that quality in order to succeed.


I agree 100%. You are either a leader or a follower, Morrison is a leader and needs to be the next Blazer!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Roy still strikes me as passive. I haven't watched him much, in spite of living a few miles from the UW campus, but I just question whether he's going to be an impact player in the NBA. Strike that; I doubt he'll be an impact player... he might be a good one, but not someone worth taking in the top 3.

I'd much rather take Gay than Roy. Gay is 2 or 3 inches taller and two years younger. I just see a lot more upside.

As for Morrison: I'd prefer Adam to Roy, as well. I'm not sure that the Blazers really need a leader, though. They just need some guys who can actually play at a high level.

Ed O.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Roy still strikes me as passive. I haven't watched him much, in spite of living a few miles from the UW campus, but I just question whether he's going to be an impact player in the NBA. Strike that; I doubt he'll be an impact player... he might be a good one, but not someone worth taking in the top 3.
> 
> I'd much rather take Gay than Roy. Gay is 2 or 3 inches taller and two years younger. I just see a lot more upside.
> 
> ...


How can you discount Roy as too passive and then say you would rather have Gay? The one huge problem that many have with Gay is that he dissapears and is not close to as aggressive as he should be. I understand that he is younger and 2 inches taller, but at least ROY has shown that he will take his team on his shoulders. 20pts 5reb 4ast 2stl 1blk all while shooting over 50% from the field. Gay scored only abour 15 pts, had one more reb per game, and only 2 ast. His FG% is 45% FT is 72% and 3pt is only 32%. All significantly worse then Roy's.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> I'm not sure that the Blazers really need a leader, though. They just need some guys who can actually play at a high level.


To further what Ed said, POR just needs soemone else who can consistently score. I think POR does need a leader though, Zach & Miles clearly aren't that type of player....

I watched Redick play last night and he was impressive, as was Morrison. Both can really shoot the ball and both find ways to get open. 

Morrison is very adept at initiating or absorbing contact...He will probably get a lot of favorable calls in the NBA as well, he just has a knack for "selling" the contact\foul and has clearly established a rep as an offensive force...He also seems very adept at finding and exploting seems in an opponents defense...I find him very impressive as an offensive player and I don't see it non translating to the NBA...the question is just how well it will...He is a kooky character though, that id for sure...

I still have a lot of questions about Redick, Is he really 6'4? Or closer to 6'2?. That guy has a sweet looking stroke though, and he is an energizer bunny out there. I saw him roll off a screen a few times and just bury the shot....I think if he gets a decent look at the basket, he is going to hit the shot many more times than not...The question is if he will be able to create a shot for himself in the NBA...IF you take a kid like Redick, I would think you would want to have several plays designed to break him free of his defender, a lot of screens and picks, b\c you give a guy like that a clear or semi clear look at the hoop he is going to score....

I think Redick is a better shooter than Morrison, but Morrison is much more creative & can score in many more ways, his size is a factor as well IMO. Redick is a lot more active on defense than Morrison is, but suffers from athleticism and size, the bottom line is niether will be a good defender in the NBA, but I think POR needs their scoring much more than they need defense...I would take either player (and Gay, Bargnani, Aldridge, Shawne Williams (if he declared)) over Roy

My list for POR would be
1) Morrison - I think for POR he SHOULD be the clear #1, not sure if he will be a "franchise\all star" type or not, but he is worth drafting and finding out. I like his innate scoring ability and his fiery on court demeanor, he definitely has a knack for the clutch platy too.
2) Gay - He is better now than Outlaw will ever be IMO
3) Bargnani - I am hesitant to pick him, all I have seen is some video, and while he looks good, I just don't know nearly enough about him.
4) Aldridge - I have seen him 3-4 times and he has looked unimpressive each time

After that I think POR should take a long look at Redick...He reminds me of a Jeff Hornacek type of player, I think he will succeed in the NBA, but your going to have to tailor parts of you offense to gte the most out of him...

Having guys like Skinner, Khryapa & Pryzbilla is going to be (or should be) key for POR. These guys are intelligent players who aren't afraid to do the dirty work, they set solid screens\picks...this would really help guys like Morrison\Redick and Webster, heck anyone on the team.

I think this draft gets sketchy after the top 4, and Roy is in a pool of players, along with Redick, Rodney Carney, Tiago Splitter, Shelden Williams, Ronnie Brewer & Randy Foye....You could add Shawne Williams and Josh McRoberts to that list if they declare too...

For POR Redick is a very appealing choice (IMO) out of that group....Carney and Shawne Williams would be next...

So no, I don't think POR should draft Roy, I think there are better players to choose from.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

thylo said:


> How can you discount Roy as too passive and then say you would rather have Gay? The one huge problem that many have with Gay is that he dissapears and is not close to as aggressive as he should be. I understand that he is younger and 2 inches taller, but at least ROY has shown that he will take his team on his shoulders. 20pts 5reb 4ast 2stl 1blk all while shooting over 50% from the field. Gay scored only abour 15 pts, had one more reb per game, and only 2 ast. His FG% is 45% FT is 72% and 3pt is only 32%. All significantly worse then Roy's.


Roy is a senior... he should be putting up numbers. And I can say that I fear Roy's too passive because I've seen him in person, while I haven't seen Gay.

I'm not really concerned with whether a player takes an NCAA team on his shoulders or not. I'm concerned with how they are going to stack up in the NBA. Gay simply looks like a much better bet--specifically because of his upside--in this year's draft.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Roy is a SG....and could probably play some PG with his ball handling abilities...I have seen numerous UW games this year and I doubt he can hang at the SF position and you have to be nuts if you think he'd ever be able to play PF....

He's a solid player, a pretty good defender, I wouldn't target him unless were already planning on giving up on Telfair and Webster...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Roy is a senior... he should be putting up numbers. And I can say that I fear Roy's too passive because I've seen him in person, while I haven't seen Gay.
> 
> I'm not really concerned with whether a player takes an NCAA team on his shoulders or not. I'm concerned with how they are going to stack up in the NBA. Gay simply looks like a much better bet--specifically because of his upside--in this year's draft.
> 
> Ed O.


So you're one of those upside type of guys?...

We've done the upside thing, we need someone who can contribute significantly NOW!...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yea I know what your thinking about that Ed O. The problem I have with Rudy Gay is that he reminds me of another guy Marvin Williams, who I am pretty convinced was way over rated. On the other hand, I thought Charlie Villenueva would be a failure too and he has turned out pretty good so far. Roy would be a good pick later in the round. The problem is recognizing the players that thrive in the professional system, as opposed to a college system. Certain schools in the country play more of a pro type system, or tend to turn out players who do better in the professional environment. Most the best nba players come from the ACC, and that is a fact. After that you have a few other schools such as Conneticut, Arizona, and UCLA tend to turn out a few good NBA players as well.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> So you're one of those upside type of guys?...
> 
> We've done the upside thing, we need someone who can contribute significantly NOW!...


Bull. Nobody in this draft is good enough to make us a playoff contender next year. I don't think that we should worry at all about whether the guy is ready right now or not. We should take the best prospect, and while "upside" is less certain than current capabilities, it is more important to the long term success of a team.

We haven't "done the upside thing". We shouldn't "do the upside thing". We should take the best prospect taking all factors into account.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Yea I know what your thinking about that Ed O. The problem I have with Rudy Gay is that he reminds me of another guy Marvin Williams, who I am pretty convinced was way over rated.


I see what you're saying, but (a) Williams has only played a year in the NBA... it's too early to see whether he was worthy of being picked where he was, (b) Chris Paul is making everyone who passed on him look bad, and (c) Marvin wasn't even a starter at UNC.

Gay isn't a finished product by any means, which has both positives and negatives. But I think he has a more defined position than Williams, has more experience at the NCAA level than Marvin, and should be near the top of the Blazers' wish list even if Marvin's had a rough rookie year.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Bull. Nobody in this draft is good enough to make us a playoff contender next year. I don't think that we should worry at all about whether the guy is ready right now or not. We should take the best prospect, and while "upside" is less certain than current capabilities, it is more important to the long term success of a team.
> 
> We haven't "done the upside thing". We shouldn't "do the upside thing". We should take the best prospect taking all factors into account.
> 
> Ed O.


With a couple of our younger players maturing, Pryzbilla signing with us and healthy, and us getting a solid draft pick....I think we can make the playoffs next year....

Morrison will be an impact player next year....


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Bull. Nobody in this draft is good enough to make us a playoff contender next year. I don't think that we should worry at all about whether the guy is ready right now or not. We should take the best prospect, and while "upside" is less certain than current capabilities, it is more important to the long term success of a team.
> 
> We haven't "done the upside thing". *We shouldn't "do the upside thing". We should take the best prospect taking all factors into account.*
> Ed O.


I see "upside" and "best prospect" as being the same thing.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> I see "upside" and "best prospect" as being the same thing.


I can see how you would say that, but here's how I look at it: a player comes in with a certain level of ability (and by that I mean skills/production, not run/jump athleticism necessarily). In most cases, players don't get worse than that baseline until well after their prime is over.

So a player that starts with a higher baseline has a clear advantage; they are more of a "sure thing". Further, a player who starts with a high baseline isn't limited in terms of improvement because of that high starting ability (see: Tim Duncan, LeBron, et al).

Upside, to me, deals with the ceiling of how good a player can be. Of course, we never really know how good a player is going to be, but by looking at their raw skills, their athleticism, their size, and their age, I think that it's safe to say that some players just have potential to be better players than others.

Unlike the starting ability, this upside is uncertain. Darius Miles had massive upside because of his length and ahtleticism, but without a jumpshot the odds of him ever reaching that upside were not that high. By quantifying (to the best of one's ability) the chances of reaching the upside, it can be compared to the current abilities and some sort of net present value analysis can be done to determine the best prospect.

Morrison clearly has a higher current ability level than Gay. Roy might, too. But looking at their upsides I like Gay's a lot more than either of them (Roy because of his lack of size and passiveness, Morrison because of his lack of athleticism and age).

With that being said, Morrison might be so much more advanced than Gay that it would make sense to take him ahead of Rudy. I can't say that's the case with Roy relative to Gay, though, so I would prefer Gay to Roy any time.

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Don't we already have Brandon Roy, but isn't his name Martell Webster? Roy will be a nice player, but Webster will be light years better in 2-3 years. 


Oh and if it comes down somehow between he and Rudy Gay I would walk down pee on the side of the building if they took Roy ahead of Gay


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Bull. Nobody in this draft is good enough to make us a playoff contender next year. I don't think that we should worry at all about whether the guy is ready right now or not. We should take the best prospect, and while "upside" is less certain than current capabilities, it is more important to the long term success of a team.
> 
> We haven't "done the upside thing". We shouldn't "do the upside thing". We should take the best prospect taking all factors into account.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree. 

We don't need a marginal prospect who's 'ready now.' What will that do? Get us 4 extra wins? Big deal. In fact, if we get unlucky and end up with the 4th or 5th pick, I'd rather trade the pick to help ensure a better shot at Greg Oden in 2007.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> With a couple of our younger players maturing, Pryzbilla signing with us and healthy, and us getting a solid draft pick....I think we can make the playoffs next year....
> 
> Morrison will be an impact player next year....


I think that you're absolutely smocking crack on the first opinion and that leads me to think Morrison will probably be much less than what you say he will be, too.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed, did your Thelmer Modder win today?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I think that you're absolutely smocking crack on the first opinion and that leads me to think Morrison will probably be much less than what you say he will be, too.
> 
> Ed O.


and you're absolutely smoking crack if you think Rudy Gay is ever going to be anything more than a decent player in the league....

Its all a matter of opinion....New Orleans Hornets can be in the playoff hunt this year, I see no reason why we (I use the term lightly) can't next year...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> and you're absolutely smoking crack if you think Rudy Gay is ever going to be anything more than a decent player in the league....
> 
> Its all a matter of opinion....New Orleans Hornets can be in the playoff hunt this year, I see no reason why we (I use the term lightly) can't next year...


We're in the west, they're in the east.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> We're in the west, they're in the east.


The New Orleans Hornets are in the west, buddy.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> The New Orleans Hornets are in the west, buddy.


and also in OKL City... :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Its all a matter of opinion....New Orleans Hornets can be in the playoff hunt this year, I see no reason why we (I use the term lightly) can't next year...


It's not all just a matter of opinion, or if it is opinion it's not that all opinions are equally likely to be proven correct.

Teams tend to do well or poorly based on how they did the year before... it's not just random chance. This is a bad, bad Blazers team. Morrison won't change that next year to the point where we make the playoffs.

It doesn't mean that it never happens that a bad team improves dramatically and suddenly is in the playoff hunt or even the playoffs. But it's uncommon.

The Blazers will be bad again next year, irrespective of who they draft, without some sort of miracle trade. You're entitled to your opinion on our playoff chances, but you're going to be disappointed if you expect them to make the playoffs.

Ed O.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I sure wouldn't want to be in the managements position.Too many choices.Baragni(sp),Morrison,Roy.Drafting all 3 would be awesome.


----------



## myELFboy (Jun 28, 2005)

I remember I suggested B-Roy would be a good fit for the Blazers probably a month ago. You guys need a legit. scorer that can defend 3 positions, create plays for others, provide some leadership (4 yrs of college experience & he has matured a lot, would be nice for your young, young team.) He can rebound, he's clutch (anyone catch the Arizona game early in the year that they eventually lost in 2OT where he had two clutch 3's to send that game to OT & 2OT?), and I think he would be receptive to Nate, unlike some of the current players.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

If we end up drafting Roy, I'd have to see Miles moved to accomodate Webster's move over to the SF position. I just love what I see from Webster and have very high hopes for him... I think he's highly underrated as a defender and wouldn't be surprised if he could easily match up against 98% of the SF's in the league.

If Morrison is picked ahead of us, I'd like to see us dangle our pick and Miles or Blake for him. Though Roy may be a viable option.


----------



## Rip City Road Blocker (Jul 23, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> If we end up drafting Roy, I'd have to see Miles moved to accomodate Webster's move over to the SF position. I just love what I see from Webster and have very high hopes for him... I think he's highly underrated as a defender and wouldn't be surprised if he could easily match up against 98% of the SF's in the league.


I agree


I like Roy as a pick, but not if Morrisons on the board, and not if it meant less minutes for Martell. I think we need to get rid of Miles anyway. Martell could play either position and telfair could have some good shooters to kick to.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

I actually am a student at Washington...

Yes, I have a Washington State avy, i know. I went there and transfered. I hate the Huskies, just there because I want to graduate from a better school and I have people in Seattle...So GO COUGS.

Anyway...

So yeah, I see Brandon Roy play alot.

He's ok, the one thing I do respect is that he has heart. He is a better guy than Morrison, but I dont think he has the potential to be a major factor in the league.

Would I be dissapointed if we ended up with him? Nah. But I sure wouldnt be excited either.


Ill pass on him. Although I dont want a euro with this pick, you guys are hyping up Bargaini too much. Son is not that nice...I still say draft Morrison if hes available.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i wonder why gay is even considered for our draft pick an outlaw type player, would you draft outlaw in the topend of lotto? Maybe more has to do with the school? UCONN? if he when to UO-bandon (no such school) would he still be on people's list or even near it?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes the school has a lot to do with it, but also has to do with where he was in the recruiting class he came out of high school with. The thing is, you have to remember, UCONN has put a lot of players in the NBA over the last dozen years, and that is not something to take lightly. Some schools do better at producing NBA style players. UCONN is definitly one of them.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Bumb

i posted this thread back during the first round of the NCAA tourny. It's fun to look back at what everyone thought.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> Bumb
> 
> i posted this thread back during the first round of the NCAA tourny. It's fun to look back at what everyone thought.


Yah, but you missed the comment that he would pair up well with Telfair. :clown: Surely you could have done better.

gatorpops


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Don't we already have Brandon Roy, but isn't his name Martell Webster? Roy will be a nice player, but Webster will be light years better in 2-3 years.
> 
> 
> Oh and if it comes down somehow between he and Rudy Gay I would walk down pee on the side of the building if they took Roy ahead of Gay


Interesting. They both had good opening nights. I'm for Roy!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> Yes, Roy over Gay but not Aldridge
> 
> the kid is uber athletic and longer than long at 6'11 with freakish wing span
> solid 18 foot jumper and a multiple array of low post moves


How sweet is this!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

gatorpops said:


> Yah, but you missed the comment that he would pair up well with Telfair. :clown: Surely you could have done better.
> 
> gatorpops


you win some and you lose some, but hopefully the blazers will win some. I also did not seem to high on Aldridge in this thread but somewhere along the way before the draft he became my top pick. Interesting how choices change.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> depends on who is gone by the time the Blazers pick. If the Blazers don't have a top 4 pick, and the guys we all argue about are gone, he wouldn't be a bad choice.


I read this thread wondering if I put my foot deeply into my mouth (I tend to) and thankfully I didn't. I actually made a post that was vague enough that I didn't really make a decision one way or the other! 

woo!


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

Hap said:


> I read this thread wondering if I put my foot deeply into my mouth (I tend to) and thankfully I didn't. I actually made a post that was vague enough that I didn't really make a decision one way or the other!
> 
> woo!


You can edit it now to make you sound like a wiz kid. Something like this:

I think we should package Telfair and try to get another High pick. Then we could get the two best players in the draft, Roy and Aldridge.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

ryanjend22 said:


> He's ok, the one thing I do respect is that he has heart. He is a better guy than Morrison, but I dont think he has the potential to be a major factor in the league.
> 
> Would I be dissapointed if we ended up with him? Nah. But I sure wouldnt be excited either.
> 
> ...


funny to see what i said...

i feel that i now see alot more upside to Roy than i did before, and id rather have him than morrison.

although, id rather have morrison than aldridge. but i dont think that was possible anyway if we wanted to keep roy as well.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

IIRC I had my draft board (for the Blazers) on draft day at:

1. Aldridge
2. Gay
3. Roy
4. Thomas
5. Bargnani
6. Foye
7. Morrison
8. Shelden Williams

We haven't seen much regular season action, but from what we know now, I'd probably put it at:

1. Roy
2. Aldridge
3. Gay
4. Foye
5. Thomas
6. Morrison
7. Marcus Williams
8. Bargnani


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Don't we already have Brandon Roy, but isn't his name Martell Webster? Roy will be a nice player, but Webster will be light years better in 2-3 years.
> 
> 
> Oh and if it comes down somehow between he and Rudy Gay I would walk down pee on the side of the building if they took Roy ahead of Gay




Anyone know of a good building that would offer a little privacy? At least I picked another stud rookie so far to like instead of Roy


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Don't we already have Brandon Roy, but isn't his name Martell Webster? Roy will be a nice player, but Webster will be light years better in 2-3 years.
> 
> 
> Oh and if it comes down somehow between he and Rudy Gay I would walk down pee on the side of the building if they took Roy ahead of Gay


Drink alot of water before coming to the game Saturday!!!


----------

