# Someone has to say it...



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Nick and Damon are just plain fun to watch working together in the backcourt. I can't remember another team running a smaller starting backcourt, but it seems to be working.

I know there are some serious Damon-haters on this board, but to my way of thinking that results mainly from the fact that Damon isn't much of a floor general. In his new role, he can let NVE be the guy who orchestrates the offense and Damon can feel more free to be an offensive threat. I don't see this as being a long term solution to our backcourt woes, but for now, I'm having fun watching them feed off of one another.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Watching Nick and Damon shooting over 30 times a game is perhaps the least entertaining Blazers basketball I can remember watching.

I'm glad we're winning, but I am praying for something, ANYTHING, that will break up that back court because I can barely stomach it.

Ed O.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Watching Nick and Damon shooting over 30 times a game is perhaps the least entertaining Blazers basketball I can remember watching.
> 
> I'm glad we're winning, but I am praying for something, ANYTHING, that will break up that back court because I can barely stomach it.
> ...


See, I told you we weren't going to agree on much around here, Ed.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I enjoy watching it when their shots are falling, which they have been of late but were anything but earlier in the season, but it's more of a shake-your-head-in-disbelief enjoyment than a go-Blazers thing.

Dan


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

It was certainly enjoyable watching Damon & Nick torch Denver on national TV. And I was not bored in the least.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I feel the same way Ed, somehow Damon as the team's "go-to" player bugs the he11 out me. I can't wait for him to be gone.

Damon = Fool's Gold


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

more than anything else, it makes me regret that we weren't able to acquire a big ball handling guard seven years ago. if we had a guy like Doug Christie or Eric Snow or Gary Payton in their prime to pair with Damon he just might've been worth a decent fraction of his massive contract. 

we saw only glimpses of that potential with Scottie Pippen and Steve Smith, and it was too short lived. 

renting is just throwing away money when you could move out and build some equity in your future. every time I see Damon or Nick handle the ball I think back to the last apartment I rented. money and playing time just thrown away. 

we have to give Damon and Nick playing time to keep their trade value up. but make no mistake, Telfair is the new house that we are going to own for the next decade. I can't wait to move on and move in.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
more than anything else, it makes me regret that we weren't able to acquire a big ball handling guard seven years ago. if we had a guy like Doug Christie or Eric Snow or Gary Payton in their prime to pair with Damon he just might've been worth a decent fraction of his massive contract. [/QUOTE]

I agree. Damon is NOT a pure point guard. He's a 2G in a small PG body. Paired with someone who can distribute the ball, however, he's a pretty potent offensive weapon.



> renting is just throwing away money when you could move out and build some equity in your future. every time I see Damon or Nick handle the ball I think back to the last apartment I rented. money and playing time just thrown away.
> 
> we have to give Damon and Nick playing time to keep their trade value up. but make no mistake, Telfair is the new house that we are going to own for the next decade. I can't wait to move on and move in.


I don't disagree at all that Telfair is the future of the team at PG, but unless the Blazers fall completely out of the playoff picture, it would be stupid to hand the reigns over to him right now. Nick and Damon have way too much experience and are playing great together now.


----------



## Bwatcher (Dec 31, 2002)

I agree with you e_blazer. It is fun to watch. In the playoffs they wouldn't be as effective, but during the regular season, they are fun to watch.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I think Maurice Cheeks has stumbled across the best use of Damon that anyone has in years - he can play some point guard, he can play some shooting guard, and he's not expected to pound the ball inside on every possession. Instead, he's allowed to "play his game". 

Is that what's best for the Blazers? I think it's too early to tell. Portland has won three in a row, against fairly decent competition in two cases at least (Sacramento and Denver), and that's better than they've done all year long. 

Over the long term, I agree with the "rent" vs. "own" debate. The Blazers know that Van Exel and Stoudamire are almost certainly gone at season's end, and the future is going to belong to Sebastian Telfair, Darius Miles, and Zach Randolph. The three youngsters ought to be getting minutes... though it has been fun to watch Stoudamire and Van Exel on their recent hot streak.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

As long as their shots aren't too bad, I don't mind it. But sometimes NVE moreso then Damon gets way outta control.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Watching Damon and Nick jack up shot after shot is horible. I hate this offense.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> Watching Damon and Nick jack up shot after shot is horible. I hate this offense.


Ah, you have no poetry in you, mediocre man. Watching Nick drive to the hoop and lay a teardrop shot over a taller defender, or kick it to Damon on the threepoint line for a sweet jumpshot...pure iambic pentameter.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> 
> 
> Ah, you have no poetry in you, mediocre man. Watching Nick drive to the hoop and lay a teardrop shot over a taller defender, or kick it to Damon on the threepoint line for a sweet jumpshot...pure iambic pentameter.


da-DUMB da-DUMB da-DUMB da-DUMB da-DUMB
(weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG / weak STRONG) 
Was-THIS the-FACE that-LAUNCH'D a-THOU sand-SHOTS 
Although strictly speaking, iambic pentameter refers to five iambs in a row (as above), in practice, most players vary their iambic pentameter a great deal, while maintaining the iamb as the most common foot. The second foot of a line of iambic pentameter is almost never altered. The first foot, on the other hand, is the most likely to be changed, often in order to highlight a particular word or mark a shift in a poem.


----------



## RipCity9 (Jan 30, 2004)

> Watching Damon and Nick jack up shot after shot is horible. I hate this offense.


I don't know - I had more fun at the game on Saturday night than I have in a long time. Scoring is not a bad thing IMO.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

I am mostly enjoying the new offense, i am enjoying seeing Ruben in their 35+ minutes a game, I like that they seem to be looking for the fast break more, I like that because teams have to pay more attention to Nick and Damon that it enables Ruben and Joel to cut to the basket for layups, or to score on pick and rolls. There still needs to be another scoring option and hopefully Zach can learn to work within this type of offense.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I can see why someone may not like this style of offense.

They'd rather watch the offense plod down the court, put Zach in isolation. Wait, wait, wait, Zach makes move. Next time down, put Zach in isolation. Wait, wait, wait, Zach makes move.

Either that or they just don't like Damon.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yakbladder</b>!
> I can see why someone may not like this style of offense.
> 
> They'd rather watch the offense plod down the court, put Zach in isolation. Wait, wait, wait, Zach makes move. Next time down, put Zach in isolation. Wait, wait, wait, Zach makes move.
> ...


If there's anything that I like less than shoot-first PGs, it's shoot-first PGs who are bad shooters.

Damon and NVE are classic examples of that, and to have them both jacking up 15+ shots a game makes my skin crawl.

They're shooting the ball well right now, but I find it impossible to believe that they're going to be able to keep it up. And, as we saw in New Orleans, even when they're shooting the ball well it doesn't mean we're going to win games.

The future of this team is Zach and Darius (and probably Telfair), and that they're on the bench as the little lefties try to shoot us into the 9th seed in the West is just messed up.

Ed O.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

*I watch Blazers for my fun and enjoyment!*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> Watching Nick and Damon shooting over 30 times a game is perhaps the least entertaining Blazers basketball I can remember watching.
> 
> I'm glad we're winning, but I am praying for something, ANYTHING, that will break up that back court because I can barely stomach it.
> ...


I agree with you here Ed. 

But I could care less who makes the shot as that is the purpose of the game I think. To score more than the other guy while being entertaining. 

It is fun though to see that we have both an inside game and and out side game if we play with them. 

Portland had no choice to but to put VE and DS in as the guards as they just do not have available any one else. DA is just not the player he used to be for varies reasons. 

gatorpops


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: I watch Blazers for my fun and enjoyment!*



> Originally posted by <b>gatorpops</b>!
> Portland had no choice to but to put VE and DS in as the guards as they just do not have available any one else. DA is just not the player he used to be for varies reasons.
> gatorpops


Fair enough. But there is a choice in benching the better frontcourt players and letting them shoot 30+ shots per game.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> They're shooting the ball well right now, but I find it impossible to believe that they're going to be able to keep it up.


they've been shooting well for (at least for Damon) a longer time than ever in their careers. And once they got Zach back, they got another force on offense to counter the good shooting.


> And, as we saw in New Orleans, even when they're shooting the ball well it doesn't mean we're going to win games.


and as we saw in New Orleans, the team with just Damon and NVE as scorers, isn't going to be good. But a team with NVE and Damon, AND Zach AND Darius actually is not that bad.



> The future of this team is Zach and Darius (and probably Telfair), and that they're on the bench as the little lefties try to shoot us into the 9th seed in the West is just messed up.
> 
> Ed O.


trades ed. it's about trades.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> If there's anything that I like less than shoot-first PGs, it's shoot-first PGs who are bad shooters.
> ...


Given that this team doesn't have any SG's who can make a basket, who else do you see as providing backcourt scoring? I don't know how long Nick and Damon can keep up their hot shooting, but I think they're feeding off of each other. I'm a firm believer that you stick with something that's working until it no longer is.



> The future of this team is Zach and Darius (and probably Telfair), and that they're on the bench as the little lefties try to shoot us into the 9th seed in the West is just messed up.


Jeez, I hope not. Zach may develop into a franchise player if he can elevate his understanding of the game a couple of levels, but the fascination with Darius just leaves me scratching my head. The guy only puts out effort every third game, has a crummy outside shot, and has shown that emotional maturity is not his strong suit.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Believe it or not, I'm more inclined toward Darius' talent level than Zach's...at least as far as potential is concerned.

Zach will never be a big shot blocker, or a lockdown defender. Miles COULD be both and a decent scorer to boot. It's just a couple of big IFs.

But Zach also can't be the only option. And the people who want so badly to sit NVE and Damon want Zach to have the ball all the time.

Telfair may be the future of the franchise, but then theoretically, so is every draft pick we ever make. So following that logic, every time we draft someone we need to trade a veteran so we can get more minutes for the "future" of our franchise.


----------



## mavsman (Jun 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> If there's anything that I like less than shoot-first PGs, it's shoot-first PGs who are bad shooters.
> ...


I agree with your assessment. NVE is the kind of player you find yourself saying "no, no, good shot". And if he is shooting well he can carry your team in stretches. The problem is that he is not a good shooter and really never has been. He is a career 40% shooter. You have to ask yourself why is a 40% shooter taking so many shots?

Damon is not much better at 41% for his career. Guys like them are streaky and while they are hot everyone thinks they are great but when they cool off and they will they can hurt your team really badly.

Two years ago when NVE was hot in the Blazer series and helped the Mavs beat the Blazers everyone thought he was geatest thing since sliced bread. However what slipped everyone's mind since then is the bad shooting series he had against every other team both that years playoffs and the year before. In the 5 playoff series for the Mavericks NVE had 3 bad series one OK series and one incredible series against the Blazers and the only thing everyone remembers is the Blazer series. Everyone except die hard Mav fans who were screaming for him to stop taking bad shots.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm not saying scoring is a bad thing. It's the way the team is set up that isn't good. Cheeks' offense is set up to fail. NVE and Damon have to hit jump shots in order for it to succeed because there is no movement on the offense.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

NVE has me cringing when he takes the first 3-4 shots of the game, and bricks them. Would much rather see Damon and Telfair start together as they involve the big guys more.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mediocre man</b>!
> I'm not saying scoring is a bad thing. It's the way the team is set up that isn't good. Cheeks' offense is set up to fail. NVE and Damon have to hit jump shots in order for it to succeed because there is no movement on the offense.


Actually, I think just the opposite is true. When the offense was built around posting Zach up on almost every play, there was nearly zero movement on offense. The guards were only getting the ball kicked back out to them when the shot clock was running down and so were consistently jacking up forced, off-balance, shots with time expiring. Now, with Damon and NVE as the first option, they're catching the ball and shooting in rythym with a lot better results. Having the improved guard play is also opening things up for the big men. Instead of just packing the middle, as opponents were able to do in the Zach-first offense, defenders now have to try to stick with NVE and Damon. This results in Joel and Theo getting catches inside for dunks. It also improves Zach's performance, as demonstrated by last game's results, because he's most effective cleaning up the glass and putting the ball back in the hoop.

Is this the way I'd like to see the team built for the long run? No, but it's working for now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>e_blazer1</b>!
> 
> Is this the way I'd like to see the team built for the long run? No, but it's working for now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


I don't see much of anything "working".

The team has won 5 of 7 games, true, but all of those wins were at home and 3 of the 5 were against likely lottery teams. If Peja Stojakovic and Mobley hadn't shot a combined 5-20, Sacramento wins the last game, and counting on Duncan to shoot 9 for 20 from the field isn't a good strategy, either.

This guard-oriented offense has been around for longer than these past 7 games, as well, and there was a lot of losing. I'm going to have to see more than two quality wins before I think it's the right way to go.

A bigger question, though, is why would we go with this even if it IS "working"? This gets back theW's rent/buy point... this team is not going to do anything this year with NVE and Damon shooting a lot, and one or both of them are going to be gone next season. So why not go with a long-term approach that might pay dividends down the line?

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Ed,

I'd have to disagree here on two points. While you can't expect Duncan to hit like that again, you can hitch your wagon to defense and expect to collectively affect them as a team. It's not unprecedented for a team to win the championship based primarily on defense, as we saw last year with the Pistons. As much as you can expect team A to have a good night on offense, the same can be said for team B to have a good night on defense.

In addition, you can view it the other way around. I wouldn't expect Mike Bibby to hit 13-23, with 4-9 from the 3pt line next time either - or Brad Miller (although he does have a really good FG %) of hitting 7-13 again. Typically in most NBA games, someone has a bad, or at least unproductive, night amongst the five starters.

You seem to want to start Telfair and Outlaw and whomever else because they are the annointed "future" of our team. But this presupposes that A) there is no way we are making the playoffs and B) that throwing a player into the fire is better in the long run than any other approach. I would dispute either of these. And, as I pointed out in a different posting, if you're going to start benching all the veterans and playing all of the rookies because they are the "future" of our franchise, then why not start all the draft picks each and every year so the dividends pay off?


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> A bigger question, though, is why would we go with this even if it IS "working"? This gets back theW's rent/buy point... this team is not going to do anything this year with NVE and Damon shooting a lot, and one or both of them are going to be gone next season. So why not go with a long-term approach that might pay dividends down the line?


As long as the Blazers have a chance to make the playoffs, in my view you play the guys who are most likely to get you there. Based on experience and what they've shown since inserted into the starting lineup together, those guys are Damon and Nick. 

I don't buy your pessimistic viewpoint that the Blazers aren't going to be able to do anything in the playoffs. Sure, if they get matched up against the Spurs, my money would be on the Spurs. But it's possible to get to 6th or 7th seed and draw a more favorable opponent. Frankly, I don't see there being an overwhelming pick for the title this year anyway. If the Blazers get all of their players back and healthy, they have a shot against anybody. Maybe not a great shot, but a shot none-the-less.

If the Blazers drop entirely out of the hunt for the for the playoffs, then I buy into the idea of playing the young guys to get experience and to maybe get a better draft spot. Until then, I'm for playing to win.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I gotta agree with Ed here, how the Hell is this new playing style and lineup actually working? We've lost a lot more games with Damon and Nick as center peices rather than Zach as the center peice, we have won many more games by going to Zach first. I just hope Nash can get rid of both those cancers and fire Mo in the off season.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Sambonius</b>!
> I gotta agree with Ed here, how the Hell is this new playing style and lineup actually working? We've lost a lot more games with Damon and Nick as center peices rather than Zach as the center peice, we have won many more games by going to Zach first. I just hope Nash can get rid of both those cancers and fire Mo in the off season.


The Blazers are 6-8 since Damon and NVE have been put into the starting lineup together. Considering that the Blazers played a six game road trip during that period and that Miles, SAR, and Zach were all out for most of that stretch, I'd say that's a pretty impressive record.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

And SAR has been gone too, so using your argument, we won a lot more games with SAR here than without.

So why aren't you busting a gut to get SAR back in the lineup when he's healthy?

Why would you ever play against the majority of a team's strengths in order to let one guy try and succeed? You wouldn't.

Oh, by the way, since no one can seem to answer this, how is NVE or, heck, even Damon, considered a cancer?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yakbladder</b>!
> And SAR has been gone too, so using your argument, we won a lot more games with SAR here than without.
> 
> So why aren't you busting a gut to get SAR back in the lineup when he's healthy?


I don't know if you're talking to me or not, but it's pretty clear a good answer would be: because SAR won't be with the team long-term. Another answer (related) is that he plays the same position as our best player and his secondary position is the same as one of our top 3 young players.



> Oh, by the way, since no one can seem to answer this, how is NVE or, heck, even Damon, considered a cancer?


Ask Golden State or Denver about why NVE might be considered a cancer.

Ask any Blazer fan with a memory past two weeks how Damon gets when he doesn't get to start, or enough shots, or a big enough role in the offense.

I don't know if either of them are "cancers" or not, and I don't care. Neither of them are good enough to take the team anywhere this season and they're too old to take us anywhere in the future (even if they're in Portland).

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> Ask Golden State or Denver about why NVE might be considered a cancer.
> 
> ...


Well then I guess we could ask Cleveland about Miles and put him in that category too.

And we could ask any Blazer fan with a memory how Zach reacts when he is pulled from a game when he doesn't want to be...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>yakbladder</b>!
> Well then I guess we could ask Cleveland about Miles and put him in that category too.


You're saying that sleeping in once and having a couple arguments with a coach is on the same level as what Nick did in Golden State? 

Wrong.



> Originally posted by <b>yakbladder</b>!
> And we could ask any Blazer fan with a memory how Zach reacts when he is pulled from a game when he doesn't want to be...


That's not even in the same ballpark. Hell, that ain't even the same sport. 

Getting upset because you get pulled is natural...even neccesary in the high stakes world of professional sports. That's not even remotely close to the cancerous attitude that Nick displayed in Golden State or even Denver.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think we know what "behavior" he pulled in Denver, but what did he do in Golden State?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

assume that the future of this franchise is irrelevant. 

assume that we didn't just sign a massive wad of dough to players that aren't getting enough minutes.

even assume that we don't have a really promising young PG on the bench who looks like he could start right now. 

let's just talk about the merits of The Damon and Nick Show. 

Phil Jackson once said that any team can live with one knucklehead. any more and it gets out of hand. I think the same is true about poor shooting. 

how many teams in recent history have had any meaningful success when their two primary scorers have career averages around 40% FG? 

I can't even think of a successful NBA team that had two 40% shooting starters, regardless of how often they shoot. 

on to defense: how many NBA teams in recent years have had any meaningful success featuring two guards under 6-1? again, I can't think of one. 

so somehow we are going to defy all NBA conventional wisdom TWICE and let two guys who are too short and can't shoot a decent percentage lead us to success? 

i am patiently drumming my fingers until the trade deadline. I have this big hope that the delusion of the Damon and Nick Show will be over by then due to trade (preferably) or benching.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fork</b>!
> 
> 
> You're saying that sleeping in once and having a couple arguments with a coach is on the same level as what Nick did in Golden State?
> ...


Hrm..well it wasn't just a couple of arguments, and it wasn't just one coach, and it wasn't just sleeping in. But ok, I somewhat see your point. But whether its horrendous, rapidly spreading bladder cancer or timid, localized skin cancer, it's still cancer. Hence my argument that at some point you no longer become a growth, you are a cancer irregardless of your size or volatility.

And calling Zach's actions earlier in the season (or was it last season) when he started essentially yelling at Cheeks during a game and flipping the ball at him like a five year old would - you're saying that's "necessary" in the world of sports?

To quote you, WRONG.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> i am patiently drumming my fingers until the trade deadline. I have this big hope that the delusion of the Damon and Nick Show will be over by then due to trade (preferably) or benching.


You and me both.....

I will be utterly dissapointed and pissed if this is the team we "roll" with until the end of the season.

I will ask all of you who support this lineup this question...AGAIN.

HOW does this current lineup help the future of this team?

Assuming that POR keeps Damon and NVE together after the FEB deadline and continues to play them with Theo, Joel and Ruben (God that lineup is just ridiculous....not in a good way either).

How does this help the team, when next year Damon, NVE & SAR will all be let go if they are still here?

This team will not make the playoffs people, but in order to DELUDE itself and SOME fans, they will attempt to, and let the youth...ie THE FUTURE of this team ROT on the bench....brilliant...just brilliant...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

theWanker:

I always enjoy your posts. Unfortunately, I was so distracted by your avatar that I was unable to read your latest entry.

Do you think you could repeat that without the dancing Sabas?

J/K of course. Great avatar! But I did have to cover it with my hand to be able to read.

Anyway...add me to the list of those who hate the short, shoot-first, ball hogging, bad defence, Cheeks lovin', two point guard, backcourt.

It seems like these two guys must shoot 40 times a game, and I'm afraid it's rubbing off on Telfair. In the first quarter of the Sacto game Van Exel was just jacking up bad shot after bad shot, and missing them. 

What difference does it make how many points these guys score if their opponent scores more? I don't have time for in-depth research but I would be shocked if this weren't the case. I remember too many games of the other team's guards feasting on Damon. And the "Quick" isn't anymore.

And since Zach can't cover their defensive liabilities, Cheeks may not have much choice but to start the two shot-blocking centers over our best player. 

I understand those of you who say it doesn't make sense to bench veterans for unproven youngsters with "potential." But these are not normal circumstances. We've got 4 veterans on the trading block, including our 3 most experienced guards. Those that aren't traded still may not be here next year. 

Trade the tiny tandem. Give the kids some burn.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> I will ask all of you who support this lineup this question...AGAIN.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that line of thinking. You play each season for itself. Despite what some of you seem to want to believe, this one isn't over yet. As long as they're in a Blazer uniform, you play the guys who are putting out the most effort and producing the best results. If we fall out of the playoff picture, then it's time to start thinking about next season...if there is one.

What I keep reading is that some of you want to start the young guys now. What does that achieve? It sends the message that management doesn't care whether the players are putting out effort and doing what the coach asks them to do. It says that salaries mean more than results. It tells the players that the season is over and we no longer care about winning; in fact, losing is better since we get a better draft pick.

Bull puckey!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

But you have to admit, Wanker's avatar is pretty good...

It'd be better if you could get him to do the little Russian squat dance....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> What I keep reading is that some of you want to start the young guys now. What does that achieve? It sends the message that management doesn't care whether the players are putting out effort and doing what the coach asks them to do. It says that salaries mean more than results. It tells the players that the season is over and we no longer care about winning; in fact, losing is better since we get a better draft pick.


That is garbage....

What message does it send, when mgmt is more concerned with making the playoffs, when they have NO chance to win an NBA title, at the expense of the future of the franchise?

I thought the primary goal of this franchise was to win an NBA title, not to merely be satisfied with making the playoffs?

You talk about playing each season for itself, that is how you end up in the position that POR now finds itself in. Mgmt has to make up their mind....Are they merely content to tread water? Or are they willing to dip below where they want to be, in order to put the pieces in place to compete for an NBA title? You don't get there by short term thinking that is for sure. It takes planning, and a willingness to sacrfice the NOW for the benefit of the future.

I think too many people on these boards suffer from short sighted thinking, and if mgmt thinks that way, then you can be assured that we will languish in mediocrity..


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

You know Kmurph, your posts make me laugh because you have this viewpoint that never compromises, never admits that someone with a different viewpoint might be an iota correct. And you go and call someone else's post garbage, that's real adult of you.

The real funny thing is that I've read e_blazer's posts for a long time, and I know he has no problem with "dipping below the line" to build a stronger team for the future. But he just doesn't want to chunk away the whole season because YOU don't think we have any chance.

Let me see if I can explain mathematics to you. See, in order to have a chance, we'd have to make the playoffs. Once we make the playoffs, we have a chance, no matter how slim it may be. Now whether you think the chance of winning the whole enchilada is .0001% or 100%, the fact remains that a chance is there. So if you're goal is to win a championship every year (and really we could argue this much more in depth because in my view most teams' goal is just to be entertaining), then you have to actually HAVE the chance first. If you want to argue that the Blazers have LITTLE chance to make the playoffs, which, resulting in failure would give them NO chance to win the championship, then fine. But don't say something so blatantly factually incorrect as they have NO chance to win the championship.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Look, Kmurph, all we're arguing about here is whether the Blazers should decide to keep working for the playoffs as long as they have a shot at it, or not. If, as many of you seem to think, the current lineup has no chance, then it shouldn't be too many more games before it becomes obvious that the team has no shot at the playoffs. At that point, by all means, pull the plug on the season, play the young guys and let the losses pile up.

I've been watching the NBA for a lot of years and I've seen some crazy things in the playoffs like an 8th seeded 93-94 Denver team bouncing the #1 seeded Sonics out of the playoffs and then taking the Jazz to 7 games in the second round. Nobody gave them any chance in either series, but I guess that's why they actually play the games. 

There's plenty of time to make decisions and changes to next year's team. I'm in favor of playing to win.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> And you go and call someone else's post garbage, that's real adult of you.


Don't get all bent out of shape by it, it is just a manner of speak, the intention wasn't to insult eblazer1.



> You know Kmurph, your posts make me laugh because you have this viewpoint that never compromises, never admits that someone with a different viewpoint might be an iota correct.


I don't know about never compromising, I don't think that is a fair assessment. But in terms of, "Should we be rooting for this team to make the playoffs?" Yeah, I am not going to change my view on it. IMO, making the playoffs will do more HARM than good. Why? b\c in order to make the playoffs our esteemed coach will continue giving heavy minutes to guys like Damon, NVE, Ruben, and if he stays here SAR all at the expense of young players like Telfair, Outlaw, Khryapa & Miles, and three of those guys (Damon, NVE and SAR) will not even be members of this team next year...

All for what? So we could say we made the playoffs? And that isn't even a guarantee that we WILL make the playoffs, in fact most likely we won't. I don't see the logic behind it, I'd rather admit this season is a lost one and begin to get the young players the valuable real game experieince that they need. That doesn't mean the season has to be a downer IMO. Quite frankly, I think watching POR young guys play and learn on the job could be the exact opposite. At least there is a little hope there, I don't see much hope in watching Damon and NVE chuck up 15-20 shots per night.



> I've been watching the NBA for a lot of years and I've seen some crazy things in the playoffs like an 8th seeded 93-94 Denver team bouncing the #1 seeded Sonics out of the playoffs and then taking the Jazz to 7 games in the second round. Nobody gave them any chance in either series, but I guess that's why they actually play the games.


I think you are dreaming here, POR is not close to either of those teams or situations. I don't see how anyone could think that POR could beat a SA or PHX this year in the playoffs, and that really isn't the point...The point is this is just wasting time...making the playoffs this year, if POR goes about it the way they are (ie veterans playing almost all the minutes) does nothing to further this team along the rebuilding process, it does the opposite IMO, it directly hampers it.



> If you want to argue that the Blazers have LITTLE chance to make the playoffs, which, resulting in failure would give them NO chance to win the championship, then fine. But don't say something so blatantly factually incorrect as they have NO chance to win the championship.


Do you want to place a bet that the Blazers will win a championship this year then? Are we going to digress into technicalities then? Or are we going to speak in realistic terms?



> There's plenty of time to make decisions and changes to next year's team. I'm in favor of playing to win.


I don't think there is plenty of time to make decisions and changes to this team. Two weeks....That is about it until the trade deadline, so Nash will have to decide soon if he is going to deal the vets on this team for additional young talent (like he should IMO) or deal them for other veterans or stand pat in a vain attempt to make into the playoffs. Either decison will have PROFOUND effects on this franchise's future, I'll let you guess which one would be more negative.

Look, if we were fighting for the playoffs with our young players leading the way then I would agree with you, but it is the exact opposite that is occuring. We have two 6'0 PG playing 35-40min and jacking up a majority of the shots, both of whom might I repeat will not be here next year, and the rest of the playing time being taken by mostly veteran players (outside of Pryzbilla and Zach). Yeah, Miles sees what 16min a game? Telfair about 10? that isn't enough for a player to build on. 

And if you believe that winning NOW is important, then you probably are for POR retaining NVE and Damon, which means POR will in all likelyhood get nothing for them when they walk into FA next year, that doesn't help the team going forward now does it?

Is making the playoffs this year really worth hurting our chances to rebuild next year? I don't think it is. It is a tough call to make IMO (playing the young guys and in all likelyhood losing a fair amount), but it would be the wisest move this team could make to help its future.

Next year at this time, if Telfair, Miles, Zach and Pryzbilla are playing the majority of minutes and fighting for a playoff spot, then I would heartily agree they should make a move to enhance that chance. But a team with Damon, NVE, Ruben, Theo and SAR seeing a majority of the minutes? It is a waste of time........


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmurph</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't get all bent out of shape by it, it is just a manner of speak, the intention wasn't to insult eblazer1.
> ...


Wow, it's kind of weird reading a response to two different people in one post. Maybe Yak & I should merge our identities.

Hmmm. I think Yak_blazer1 sounds better than e_bladder. :laugh: 


Kmurph, you've said your piece & I've said mine. I think both sides have some merit, but that neither one of us is likely to change the opinion of the other. Since the Blazers haven't asked for either of our opinions, I guess we just sit back an see what develops.


----------

