# Roy says "Portland is very interested"



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Sorry, if this has been posted already:



> *Reporter:* Do you feel like this is an important week for you, just because you are starting to work out for teams?
> 
> *Brandon Roy:* *It’s exciting, Portland is right there, and they are saying that they are very interested, so I want to go in there and play well.* Then you have Chicago following, and people are saying that Chicago is considering drafting a wing player. So its going to be a big week. Minnesota is coming up, but at the same time I am excited, but I have to stay ready, stay ready for anything. Just have fun, its basketball, just go out there and have fun, compete against these guys.
> 
> ...


http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1336


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I really hope we don't select him number 4 that would really suck.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

> Reporter: So you said you heard Portland is interested in you?
> 
> Brandon Roy: Yeah [laughs]…They are pretty interested. [laughs]


I wonder what kind of a laugh that was?

barfo


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

*uncorks vial of poison*


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

It seems like everybody wants Brandon Roy now. 

Toronto needs/wants an upgrade at SG cuz Mo Pete sucks. 
Chicago is looking to upgrade their backcourt cuz they play 3 PGs at a time.
Charlotte could go either way with Roy or Morrison, depending on if they want offense or defense to go with Okafur.
Portland is interested in him as well cuz he's a "Nate" guy whatever that means.
Houston is wants to pick him up to have a lockdown defender to go with Yao and Tmac.
Orlando is trying very very hard to move up in the draft to get him.
I mean, geez, everybody and their momma wants a piece of Brandon Roy now when this time last year he was just an afterthought.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

He may end up being the better pick. Us fans really don't know that yet.

[OpeningCanOfWorms] Remember last year when most of us wanted Gerald Green over Chris Paul? [/OpeningCanOfWorms]


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

smokescreen please


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

chromekilla said:


> I really hope we don't select him number 4 that would really suck.





tradeshareefnow said:


> *uncorks vial of poison*





cimalee said:


> smokescreen please


I really don't get these comments.

It's looking more and more like this guy is on everybody's top 3 list. If all these teams are clamoring to get him, he's probably pretty damn good. I doubt EVERY team is saying they like Brandon Roy as a smokescreen. In fact, he may very well be the best player in this draft. If we do draft him, he may be the best player on our team next year. Why wouldn't we want that? 

Passing on Roy, just because we already have Webster, would be a mistake. Roy can play PG and SG. Webster can play SG and SF. There's minutes to go around when you have as little talent as the Blazers have.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Fork said:


> I really don't get these comments.
> 
> It's looking more and more like this guy is on everybody's top 3 list. If all these teams are clamoring to get him, he's probably pretty damn good. I doubt EVERY team is saying they like Brandon Roy as a smokescreen. In fact, he may very well be the best player in this draft. If we do draft him, he may be the best player on our team next year. Why wouldn't we want that?
> 
> Passing on Roy, just because we already have Webster, would be a mistake. Roy can play PG and SG. Webster can play SG and SF. There's minutes to go around when you have as little talent as the Blazers have.


They can both play two different positions, but their secondary position is not either player's strength. If he plays PG, he takes minutes from Jack/Telfair, if he plays SG, Webster is forced to play undersized at SF.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I don't understand the anti-Roy sentiment; it seems like it's more pro-Ammo than anti-Roy than anything, but seriously ... either one would be a good pick for Portland.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I really want adam morrison because if we take roy then he takes minutes at pg,sg,and webster might have to play undersized sf instead of dominating shorter sg.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

chromekilla said:


> I really want adam morrison because if we take roy then he takes minutes at pg,sg,and webster might have to play undersized sf instead of dominating shorter sg.


Take the BPA, dont worry about position, remember that bit us in the *** last year by passing up Chris Paul


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

JFizzleRaider said:


> Take the BPA, dont worry about position, remember that bit us in the *** last year by passing up Chris Paul


Good point i forgot about that.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

JFizzleRaider said:


> Take the BPA, dont worry about position, remember that bit us in the *** last year by passing up Chris Paul


We don't really know about that yet. 

Martell is not even close to being a finished product.


----------



## JFizzleRaider (Nov 1, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> We don't really know about that yet.
> 
> Martell is not even close to being a finished product.


Neither was Telfair!!!

I want Morrison as much as you do man, 

I rank them like this
1/ Morrison
2/ Aldridge
3/ Roy
4/ Gay


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I trust the guys who have seen every minute of every game that has ever been on tape more than speculative internet sources, memories fuzzy from pregame beer and forum groupthink.

Who knows: he might end up being the steal of the draft at #4.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Who knows: he might end up being the steal of the draft at #4.


Then again...he may not.....


----------



## hoojacks (Aug 12, 2004)

Samuel said:


> I trust the guys who have seen every minute of every game that has ever been on tape more than speculative internet sources, memories fuzzy from pregame beer and forum groupthink.
> 
> Who knows: he might end up being the steal of the draft at #4.


OR, he could end up being a shooting gaurd who's 6 foot 6, 195 pounds, didn't excel majorly in any categories (and now moving up to a hire talent level), doesn't attack the hoop enough, and wasnt exactly a stellar defender in college. Or, he could be the steal of the draft. Honestly, I don't know.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

I say we take him, if he's available, and then trade him away for some big-men.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

TradeShareefNow said:


> OR, he could end up being a shooting gaurd who's 6 foot 6, 195 pounds, didn't excel majorly in any categories (and now moving up to a hire talent level), doesn't attack the hoop enough, and wasnt exactly a stellar defender in college. Or, he could be the steal of the draft. Honestly, I don't know.


 You could make the same general comments about the top 4-6 picks in this draft (could be impact player or could be a bust) . . . that is why you don't trade up.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

The more I read, the more I think that if Morrison is gone, and Portland can't do a reasonable deal to get him, then Roy is the pick.

I will also predict that if Roy is picked by Portland, Telfair will be traded by the deadline. I think with Nash gone and Nate/Pritchard making the decisions, Telfair will be the one who is traded. Sorry guys.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> The more I read, the more I think that if Morrison is gone, and Portland can't do a reasonable deal to get him, then Roy is the pick.
> 
> I will also predict that if Roy is picked by Portland, Telfair will be traded by the deadline. I think with Nash gone and Nate/Pritchard making the decisions, Telfair will be the one who is traded. Sorry guys.


thats possible, but I think you're taking great liberty with who does or doesn't like telfair on the team.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Bottom line for the Oil Can....

Blazers take Morrison-I buy a ticket package.

Blazers take someone else-I don't


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Reep said:


> I will also predict that if Roy is picked by Portland, Telfair will be traded by the deadline. I think with Nash gone and Nate/Pritchard making the decisions, Telfair will be the one who is traded. Sorry guys.


What makes you think Nate/Pritchard don't like Telfair as much as Nash did? Nate was extremely positive about how Telfair finished out the season. I think at a minimum Telfair will be sticking around another year (barring an outstanding trade offer for him of course, bad teams can't be too picky). I don't really know Prtichards opinion, but he did play him a whole lot while coach (of course that was kinda the point of him being coach, so I wouldn't read much into it).


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

My understanding is Roy is not really a point guard so his presence should not affect plans for Telfair.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Pritchard likes Telfair a lot...in fact he has stated he thinks Telfair is going ot be a very good NBA player...So this "Nash is gone, so Telfair is most likely to go" ios completely erroneous....

I still say choosing Roy over Gay (in particular) or Thomas is a big mistake on POR part....

Webster and Gay would be a fantastic tandem at SG\SF...good size and complementary skills...

I am not big fan of Roy...I think his defense is severly overated, and I think that he has a weaker perimeter game than either Gay or Morrison do, and his offensive strength (slashing) isn't nearly as good as Gay....

and if Thomas measures in at 6'10 or so in shoes...at his age (19) and with his athleticism and motor...POR has to seriously consider him...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Quote said about Josh Howard: "Josh Howard is a player who is good at everything, but excels at nothing in particular"

Quote said about Roy: "Roy is good is good at everything and excels at nothing in particular".

Interesting that they are viewed to be the same type of player. The reason Roy got noticed this draft, is because nobody in the league wants to let another Josh Howard type slip to late in the 1st round again. The difference is Roy will end up a shooting guard probably.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> Interesting that they are viewed to be the same type of player. The reason Roy got noticed this draft, is because nobody in the league wants to let another Josh Howard type slip to late in the 1st round again. The difference is Roy will end up a shooting guard probably.


Another difference is that we've got the 4th pick in the draft... Howard was an EXCELLENT value for the Mavs at #29, but even with the benefit of hindsight he shouldn't have been at top-5 pick in that draft.

Of course, that draft was very, very strong...

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Another difference is that we've got the 4th pick in the draft... Howard was an EXCELLENT value for the Mavs at #29, but even with the benefit of hindsight he shouldn't have been at top-5 pick in that draft.
> 
> Of course, that draft was very, very strong...
> 
> Ed O.


If you were to re-do that draft, he might not have been a top 5 pick...he would most certainly have been in the top 7. 

Lebron, Wade, Bosh and Anthony go top 4. After that, only Josh Howard, Kaman and Hinrich (outside chance of Diaw, though I think his success is mostly system based,) could possibly go 5th.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

YOu could make an argument for Howard being in the top 5. LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh are clearly top 5 from that year. But who else would you put ahead of Josh Howard? Chris Kaman, Kirk Hinrich, TJ Ford are all good players but I think that Howard is better.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

crandc said:


> My understanding is Roy is not really a point guard so his presence should not affect plans for Telfair.


From draftexpress:


> <b>Reporter:</b> Some people are saying that you may be a point, and that might be your best position. How do you see yourself?<br />
> <br />
> <b><a target="_blank" href=http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=343>Brandon Roy</a>:</b> I don’t want to say that I am going to be just a point guard, because I think I can go off the ball and score too. The best label for me would be a combo guard, I think that if you point guard next to me I can still make plays from the wing, and if you put a big-time scorer next to me I can get him the ball, get the bigs the ball. So I think that’s the best part of my game, I am not just a point or just a shooting guard, I can do both. <br />


I think Roy could play significant minutes at the point. Some have questioned his ability to defend other point guards. Nobody questions if Livingston is a PG or not, and Roy is likey a much better PG defender than Livingston will ever be.

Pritchard, Nate and company may very well like Telfair the best. I'm just saying that if they take Roy, who is clearly at least a 2/1 combo guard, then one of the other guards becomes more expendable. Maybe it's Dixon and/or Blake. I think Roy in combination with Webster and two point guards and maybe one more bench SG is enough.

I think that the Blazers were evaluating Telfair toward the end of last year. Telfair was not able to win the starting spot back from Blake, and didn't get significant minutes until they were in evaluation mode at the end. 

Observations:
1) Nate appeared to like what he saw out of Blake (started most of the season).
2) Nate appeared to like what he saw out of Jack (primary backup for most of season).
3) Telfair talked a lot about being his own kind of player and trying to be the kind of PG Nate wanted--it all seemed kind of confusing.

Maybe Telfair impressed Nate at the end of the season, but he clearly did not as much (at least as much as Blake/Jack) during the middle/beginning of the season. Maybe the Blazers don't want to play Telfair now, but think he'll be dynamite in few years. I just have a hunch that he will be the one to go. And if Roy is selected, it would make him that much more expendable.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> From draftexpress:
> I think that the Blazers were evaluating Telfair toward the end of last year. Telfair was not able to win the starting spot back from Blake, and didn't get significant minutes until they were in evaluation mode at the end.


yet...jack never won the starting spot either and got less minutes than telfair did. so by that theory Jack has to be the one they don't like.



> Observations:
> 1) Nate appeared to like what he saw out of Blake (started most of the season).
> 2) Nate appeared to like what he saw out of Jack (primary backup for most of season).


why did telfair play more minutes than jack then?


> 3) Telfair talked a lot about being his own kind of player and trying to be the kind of PG Nate wanted--it all seemed kind of confusing.


thats because the coach told him to play more of his game...because his game is played with confidence and thats what nate wanted.



> Maybe Telfair impressed Nate at the end of the season, but he clearly did not as much (at least as much as Blake/Jack) during the middle/beginning of the season.


so then..why did jack get less minutes AND never got the starting spot?


> Maybe the Blazers don't want to play Telfair now, but think he'll be dynamite in few years. I just have a hunch that he will be the one to go. And if Roy is selected, it would make him that much more expendable.


your hunch is based on you using purposely bad information.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't want this to turn into another Jack vs Telfair vs Blake debate, but when I was out reading on the internet (I cannot remember where) I seem to remember reading that one of the "projects" Nate gave the team at the end of the year was for each player to write down his starting 5 and 2nd team 5 and turn it in. Jack was the starting PG on the majority of the lineups turned in.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Hap, a debate with you regarding the value of Telfair v. Jack would be pointless as you have made it abundantly clear where you stand. Yes, Telfair had more minutes that Jack. Many of their other statistics are similar, and Telfair is younger. 

I just get the feeling that Jack has more intangibles (glue factor) than Telfair. And Jack always seemed to be part of the regular rotation, where Telfair alwasy appeared to be more of an experiment. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong on this (something I don't expect to see in return). But, if at the end of the season, Telfair is gone and Jack and Roy are with the team, we can discuss this again.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Before we all start sweating over Telfair being gone or not, why don't we wait and see who the Blazers draft?
<duck>


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I don't want this to turn into another Jack vs Telfair vs Blake debate, but when I was out reading on the internet (I cannot remember where) I seem to remember reading that one of the "projects" Nate gave the team at the end of the year was for each player to write down his starting 5 and 2nd team 5 and turn it in. Jack was the starting PG on the majority of the lineups turned in.


This was mentioned by Quick, and highly contested by SoME on the board. I think that it has validity worthy of being considered. 

However, by bringing it up, you probably just added 2-3 pages in the next couple hours to this thread. :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Reep said:


> Hap, a debate with you regarding the value of Telfair v. Jack would be pointless as you have made it abundantly clear where you stand. Yes, Telfair had more minutes that Jack. Many of their other statistics are similar, and Telfair is younger.
> 
> I just get the feeling that Jack has more intangibles (glue factor) than Telfair. And Jack always seemed to be part of the regular rotation, where Telfair alwasy appeared to be more of an experiment. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong on this (something I don't expect to see in return). But, if at the end of the season, Telfair is gone and Jack and Roy are with the team, we can discuss this again.


yep. I never admit i'm wrong..whatever

as for your theory that jack has more "intangibles", that's subjective. Also, I seriously doubt that the team will draft roy. that's much more of a media and fan created facade.

just because he's a "nate's guy" (whatever the hell that means) doens't mean they'll take him over someone who's supposidly not a "nate's guy" (according to some...altho according to a lot of people, he is).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> I don't want this to turn into another Jack vs Telfair vs Blake debate, but when I was out reading on the internet (I cannot remember where) I seem to remember reading that one of the "projects" Nate gave the team at the end of the year was for each player to write down his starting 5 and 2nd team 5 and turn it in. Jack was the starting PG on the majority of the lineups turned in.


of those turned in as reported by jason quick and john canzano. 

could've been only a few players


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Now with my magical wand I will extend this thread by 8000 post!

Stackhouse is better then Bonzi! :clown:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Then again...he may not.....


But you take my point?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

TradeShareefNow said:


> OR, he could end up being a shooting gaurd who's 6 foot 6, 195 pounds, didn't excel majorly in any categories (and now moving up to a hire talent level), doesn't attack the hoop enough, and wasnt exactly a stellar defender in college. Or, he could be the steal of the draft. Honestly, I don't know.


20 ppg, 50+% FG shooting, 5.5 rebs and 4.4 assists. Not too back for someone who doesn't excel majorly in any categories.

In a word: solid. Exactly what this Blazer team needs.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> 20 ppg, 50+% FG shooting, 5.5 rebs and 4.4 assists. Not too back for someone who doesn't excel majorly in any categories.
> 
> In a word: solid. Exactly what this Blazer team needs.



28, 5.5 and just under 2 assists (altho just under 3 as a soph when the team had more scoring) while shooting better from 3 (and made 35 more of them) while being the main guy defended on his team...AND shooting 100 more free throws....

yep, roy would be good for the team to have. If they didn't have Webster, and had a mid lotto pick instead of the 4th pick.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> 28, 5.5 and just under 2 assists (altho just under 3 as a soph when the team had more scoring) while shooting better from 3 (and made 35 more of them) while being the main guy defended on his team...AND shooting 100 more free throws....


You forgot 'can't guard an empty chair.'


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> You forgot 'can't guard an empty chair.'


and you forgot "bad cliche's don't = the truth"


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> and you forgot "bad cliche's don't = the truth"


In A_am's case, it is the truth.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

SMiLE said:


> 28, 5.5 and just under 2 assists (altho just under 3 as a soph when the team had more scoring) while shooting better from 3 (and made 35 more of them) while being the main guy defended on his team...AND shooting 100 more free throws....
> 
> yep, roy would be good for the team to have. If they didn't have Webster, and had a mid lotto pick instead of the 4th pick.


Is anyone arguing that the Blazers would take Roy over Morrison? I think most of the talk is assuming Morrison is gone when the Blazer pick and they have no reasonable way of acquiring him.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> But you take my point?


I understand your point...I just don't agree with it....

ANY player COULD be a good NBA player.....Roy is just as likely\unlikely as any other...

My point is that I don't agree that Roy is SO superior to Gay...Morrison, Thomas or Bargnani to warrant his selection over ANY of them....

There always is talk of taking the Best Player Available....and then if all things are relatively equal, you go with the position of need....

Roy isn't the BPA out of those guys....AT BEST you could argue that he is equal to them, which then begs the question why choose him over other positions (SF\PF) of more pressing need? The bottom line is it doesn't....

All you do is further clog the roster at a position (SG) that does not need to be clogged....
You have Webster at SG...but now your going to have him compete against Roy...two top 5 picks in consecutive years at the same position...it is just ridiculous...this isn't Jordan\Drexler...it isn't even CLOSE to that.....

Instead POR should be looking at Rudy Gay...who with Miles definitely on the way out, Outlaw's inability to fit into Nate's system and Khryapa destiny as a good\versatile b\u...there is a need there....and hey guess what? You allow Webster to continue his development at SG...instead of yo-yoing him b\t two postions...AND you have great size at the swing positions (6'7 and 6'9) and two players whose games compliment each other very well....Bargnani would be another choice here, should he happen to slip to #4...

Morrison obviously SHOULD be the call if he drops to #4 though he probably won't....

Thomas has the insane athleticism, size (6'10? we will see), motor and defensive intimidation factor that this team could desperately use...I see him as more of a PF than a SF, particularly at 6'10...but he apparently sees himself as a SF (as does POR mgmt?) and he is probably the riskiest pick in the draft...so I could understand a POR pass of him in favor of Roy...

I just think it is interesting that people think Roy is a better player than Gay is...when as a Soph Gay lead an EXTREMELY talented (4 1st round picks...6 overall in 06' draft likely) and upper classman lead team in scoring...Roy didn't emerge until his senior season (on a younger...less talented team)...What was Roy like as a Soph? Nowhere near Gay.....

and Gay is like only a few months older than Webster if I recall...very young for a Soph...

Ther4e is no comparison b\t the two IMO...Gay is CLEARLY a better player than Roy is...and he doesn't have any injuries (knee) lingering in his past either....


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Good post, Kmurph. Gay>Roy. By talent and by need.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> I understand your point...I just don't agree with it....
> 
> ANY player COULD be a good NBA player.....Roy is just as likely\unlikely as any other...
> 
> ...



/agreed.

i think we need big's not more Guards....


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

blue32 said:


> /agreed.
> 
> i think we need big's not more Guards....


Is Gay (listed at 6'9"--I think 6'7.5") a "big"? Gay was calling himself a swingman in a recent interview.

He brings some nice talent, but IMO is not worthy of a Top 5. I see him struggling with the complexity of the NBA and his turnover bug may continue to be a problem.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Blazer Maven said:


> Is Gay (listed at 6'9"--I think 6'7.5") a "big"? Gay was calling himself a swingman in a recent interview.
> 
> He brings some nice talent, but IMO is not worthy of a Top 5. I see him struggling with the complexity of the NBA and his turnover bug may continue to be a problem.


Gay is not a true "big", but he is not a guard either. He is a solid SF. The fact that he averaged 1.6 blocks, 1.8 steals and 6.4 boards allows me to overlook the 2 TOs per game. There are also a lot of guys jumping ship at Uconn, so I'm not sure that Gay won't look better in a different uniform. We'll know more after the 15th.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

Its 3 guys i want in this draft if im the blazers 1. Aldrige 2. Morrison . 3. Gay


----------

