# Zach is absolutely killing me



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

There's no question of the heart and desire of those kids in Blazer uniforms today. They all have the look and feel of winners. Of course, a team in flux and growth like the Blazers is going to have times where the pieces don't fit. One of those pieces is, unfortunately, their best player at the moment.

Zach just destroys the offensive flow of this team. Yeah, I know, it's tough to complain about a player that averages 25-10, but is that worth it when the team is losing and no other player can step into the system that focuses on dumping the ball to Zach 15-20 feet from the basket while he's being double-teamed, and he doesn't/can't pass out it to find an open man? When the other players realize that he's NOT going to pass out of the double team, so they don't even try to get seperation from their defender, so that on the odd chance that Zach DOES pass out, they are caught off guard and the swing passes are a half-step too late to find an open shooter? When the opposing team KNOWS THIS, so defending it is pretty easy?

I mean, every time Zach touched the ball last night, I cringed and internally begged him to pass it off, because I know that he'd try to bull his way to the basket (and maybe get fouled, but last night more often than not, get stripped or flat out miss), or dribble a few times and hoist an ill-advised long two, or even worse, a three (which he tried and made last night.. great, just encourage him more that that's a viable shot for him, nightmares of Rasheed Wallace).

I gave Zach the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of the season, because his production soared while it looked like he was at least TRYING to include his teammates in the offensive flow. But with Roy out and Webster struggling, Zach has fallen back into his old selfish habits, which doesn't make the TEAM better. Trade him now, while his worth is at its highest. Put LaMarcus in the PF starting spot and let him grow into it. When Roy comes back, turn the team into an up-tempo defend-and-press team that's exciting, if not successful. Let the kids grow and learn.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> I gave Zach the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of the season, because his production soared while it looked like he was at least TRYING to include his teammates in the offensive flow. But *with Roy out and Webster struggling, Zach has fallen back into his old selfish habits*, which doesn't make the TEAM better. Trade him now, while his worth is at its highest. Put LaMarcus in the PF starting spot and let him grow into it. When Roy comes back, turn the team into an up-tempo defend-and-press team that's exciting, if not successful. Let the kids grow and learn.


Do you see how ludicrous this sounds? With Roy out and Webster struggling, he's trying to score more. Hmmm...imagine that. We only have maybe 3-4 guys who can actually score, one of them is out, the other one has sucked this season. So, the only real scorer in our starting lineup tries to score more? Don't stop the presses for that one. And don't trade him for crap because of it. Zach bulling his way to 30 points (on 11-18 shooting) is better than kicking it out to Dixon or Jack for a missed three.

Don't blame Zach just because he's our only scorer. Dude is just trying to win the only way he knows how, by getting the ball in the basket. Surround Zach with more players who can hit an outside shot and force other teams to stop doubling him and we'll win more games. Trade him for crap and we're one piece farther away from making a playoff run.

And one more thing: coaches and fans of other teams find it to be a GOOD thing when the best player on a team steps up to try to win a game by bearing more of the burden of scoring. Why the hate affair with Zach? And I'm not singling you out. There are a LOT of people who can't seem to just accept Zach for what he is. A pure scorer who can't defend. (Nobody *****es about Michael Redd like this and that's all he is.)


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

umm... did you not see how the blazers got destroyed when Zach sat out virtually the whole 3rd quarter and the lead went from 8 to 17... then they put Zach back in and it went right back down to 7? it was obviously the game plan to get it to him b/c no one else scored... you did notice that right?

the lead inflated a little bit at the end because they stopped going to zach, and jarret jack kept jacking up threes and bricking them.... you did notice that right?

i've seen 3 consistent scorers on the Blazers roster, a healthy Zach, a healthy Roy, and a healthy Darius and i just don't understand the logic in getting rid of your most productive player

last year, the Houston Rockets were WINLESS when TMac sat out a game even if Yao played. They were also WINLESS when Yao sat out even if TMac played. you did notice that right? why do you think that is? You'd trade Zach for either of them in a heartbeat wouldn't you?

Would the team still kill you if they were winless this year if Zach was off the team? Because they would be


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

To the two responders/Zach apologists:

I don't have any perceived notions of this team being a playoff team this year. Or next. I'm ultimately concerned about the future. I'm concerned about the development of players like Roy, Webster, Jack, Aldridge, Sergio, and hopefully, Oden. Would I like them to win a few games in the process? Sure, I would. But Zach's positives do not outweigh his negatives.

Zach makes bonehead decisions. He hoists ill-conceived jumpers when there are other viable options. He is lazy at setting picks or being a decoy to get teammates open. He is a defensive liability because he's unathletic and gets beat off the dribble more times than not.

If this team is going to make it to "the next level", which in my definiton is a playoff team and a future title contender, Zach Randolph has no place on it. The organization and Blazer fans need to wake up to that realization sooner than later, and get some value from him on the trade market while the value is high.

This is my opinion. You don't have to like it, or agree with it, but as a Blazer Fan for 30+ years, I'm entitled to it.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

great posts, Zbofanatic and Fork. 

I can't understand the reasoning that our young guys would learn more if they were completely annihilated on a nightly basis, as we would be without Zach. 

I also can't understand the reasoning that we should completely destroy what is quickly becoming a very valuable trading asset (Zach) by benching him. you may be right that we aren't going to win a championship with Zach (or even get far in the playoffs). you may also be wrong. one thing is certain, though--a 25/10 starting power forward with a massive contract is much easier to trade for value than a 10/5 bench power forward with a massive contract. 

don't like Zach? fine. that's your right. just look at him as an investment. with every rebound he grabs and every foul he draws, he becomes that much more attractive to potential trading partners. if he can continue to put up these kind of numbers, it becomes very realistic to trade him for an up-and-coming small forward who DOES fit our system.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I saw the game. As mentioned before, outside of Zach there just arent many reliable scorers on the team. What you guys should be worried about is overworking the man, rather than complaining about how many shots he takes. He passed when he was doubled, scored effectively, as usual defense is a bit lacking but I dont get how someone could have complained about a guy trying to give his team a chance to win.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Zach is not the problem. The problem is that Nate only runs a limited number of plays, and they are all to Zach. You could make the argument that there are no other options for a go-to scorer on this team, so Nate's hand is forced. I might buy that. But I certainly don't buy that Zach is the reason the offense bogs down. Not for a minute.

-Pop


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Silly thread.

Zach is why we're losing?
:lol: 
Give me a break.

That's like blaming Jimmy Carter for unrest in the Middle-East.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Zachs isn't the reason we are losing...but he isn't the reason we are winning either. Would we be worse without Zach entirely? Yep we would...Would we be better if Zach was part of the system and got other players involved...Yep we would.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Double post.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Zach HAS to be selfish to some degree. We got a team full of 20 year old kids for christ sake. Our "veterans" like pryzbilla and magloire are not scoring threats, and our shooting guards are extremely streaky. Martell is, well, he has work to do. I dont really need to say much about Dixon as you already know he is not a big scorer in general. Outlaw has no business shooting any more than he already does, and I feel our PG's get enough shots as it is. Our SF position in general really is not a scoring threat.

Roy is out, and when he returns there will be alot more flow to the offense. Right now, Zach has NO choice but to do what he has to do in order for us to stay in ballgames.

If we didnt have Zach, we would not have won a single game. True story, real talk. Embrace his effort. He clearly is doing what he feels has to be done, and this year im behind him 100%. 

Has he had a couple crucial possessions where he should have passed? Definately. But I ask you this...Who the **** does he pass to that has a better chance of making the play than he does? Until we grow up more, or get some soldiers who can prove they can be a threat on a consistent basis, the ball should be in Zach hands. (i.e. like the other night when Sergio lost us the Magic game...)

He is putting up All-Star numbers and the team is behind him...Why aren't you?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

As for Zach and what he does with the ball, I don't think you can blame it all on him. I have seen many times where he is double teamed and nobody has put themselves in a position to get a pass from him. You have to realize his limitations. He is only 6'9" tall. That means passes down the lane are going to be very hard against taller opponents. That means your outlets are baseline cutters, top of the key/free throw line area, and the 3 point line. Often he is left standing there with a double team and nobody to pass to because they have cleared out too much. 

I think a much more serious problem is Jamaal Magloire. Nate puts him in and pretty much 3 to 4 minutes later the Blazers are -10 in point spread from where they were. Top it off with the fact Joel is back, I don't really understand why he is even getting minutes that Joel and Lemarcus should take every single minute of.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

we've got to stop thinking of Zach as a part of a team, but as "the man" on the team...sort of like Charles Barkley played in his prime. sure he played more of a passing game but he still took a lot of shots and was a bit selfish....and boneheaded....

Zach will bull his way to the basket and actually is VERY VERY effective...once he starts spinning and moving into the post, he really has no option but to shoot and he remains effective.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

When a team is stuggling, it seems the natural reaction is to single out anyone who is actually playing well - and blame them for everything.

Note I said "natural" reaction, not "smart"......it is still foolish and counterproductive!

Bucketball is a team game. The whole "we aren't winning with Zach" argument assumes that every team has (or should have) at least 1 Michael Jordan calibre player who can actually carry the entire team on his back. It is no longer sufficient that Zach plays well - he must play well enough to cover for all the flaws of the rest of the roster! 

Hey, Michael could do it! And Wilt! And Oscar!

At this point, there is only 1 compelling reason to trade Zach: it allows people to begin the demonization of Roy and LeMarcus. :whatever:


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

I can't believe people are finding fault with Zach. Blows my mind...he's playing great...all star level IMO.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Xericx said:


> I can't believe people are finding fault with Zach. Blows my mind...he's playing great...all star level IMO.


Great for him, bad for the team. In my opinion.

Of course, I'm in the minority because you are all just grasping at anything to be positive about the Blazers right now. Forgive me for looking at the bigger picture. I want the Blazers to contend for a championship before the end of the decade. They will NOT do that with Zach Randolph as their "superstar".


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> I want the Blazers to contend for a championship before the end of the decade. They will NOT do that with Zach Randolph as their "superstar".


if you truly understood the big picture, you'd get my point that there's a decent chance Zach won't be around for the next decade and that we'll trade him for someone of similar talent who does fit. given his injury history, character issues and contract size, and given our purging of "bad character guys" and our experiences with broken down overpaid players, doesn't it seem pretty likely that our GM is going to unload him for equal value at the first good opportunity? 

every time Zach scores, he's helping us take a tiny step toward a championship, if only because he is making himself more valuable as a trading asset.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Zach on the floor
Team FG% 46.9%
Opponent FG% 52.8%

Zach on Bench
Team FG% 52.4%
Opponent FG% 51.5%

Our FG% as a team goes up without Zach. So does our Assisted FG%. And our net scoring per 100 posessions. Of course we are talking our2nd unit vs their 2nd unit, but it is interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> every time Zach scores, he's helping us take a tiny step toward a championship, if only because he is making himself more valuable as a trading asset.


Bingo. I find it highly highly unlikely that Zach is in the forcasted future Title window Portland is building towards.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

mook said:


> if you truly understood the big picture, you'd get my point that there's a decent chance Zach won't be around for the next decade and that we'll trade him for someone of similar talent who does fit. given his injury history, character issues and contract size, and given our purging of "bad character guys" and our experiences with broken down overpaid players, doesn't it seem pretty likely that our GM is going to unload him for equal value at the first good opportunity?
> 
> every time Zach scores, he's helping us take a tiny step toward a championship, if only because he is making himself more valuable as a trading asset.


And I agree with every word you just said, you've simply been glossing over my posts and not reading what I've been saying.

Trade Zach now, while his value is high. Don't think that his performance is a harbinger of the future of the Blazers. He's not worth building the franchise around, and if you think he is, you are fooling yourself.

Hopefully you can get a top flight SF for him (Shawn Marion? Michael Redd? Carmelo Anthony?). Then your roster of the future will be:

C: Oden (hopefully)
PF: Aldridge
SF: Zach's trade
SG: Roy
PG: Sergio

Tell me that that team, given 2-3 years to gell, wouldn't be a potential dynasty.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I'd definitely trade him for Marion or Melo. problem is that his value isn't at its highest right now. he's only had this awesome production for a few months. no responsible GM is going to acquire him for full value after such a short stretch of production. (maybe Isiah Thomas would, but then they have little I want besides Lee.) 

our best hope is to gamble a little and keep him through this year, then trade him in the summer for a piece that fits.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

sf: zach's trade (durant)


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Great for him, bad for the team. In my opinion.
> 
> Of course, I'm in the minority because you are all just grasping at anything to be positive about the Blazers right now. Forgive me for looking at the bigger picture. I want the Blazers to contend for a championship before the end of the decade. They will NOT do that with Zach Randolph as their "superstar".


I don't find the problem with the team being Zach right now. I find the problem being our entire team's lack of experience and stability and not stepping up. When that all happens, I think everything is going to be ok.....I really don't understand why people still think that Zach can't be part of a championship contender? Because he is a below average defender? Because he likes to take charge and shoot rather than send it out to a guard who will brick a shot? 

The first step to championship contention is to get to the playoffs. We trade Zach for Richard Jefferson or Luol Deng, we have a step back towards making the playoffs in the West. Zach is one of the biggest scoring threats at the PF spot in the entire league. In my opinion, he's the most effective and best low post scorer in the league right now, speaking purely offensively.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mook said:


> if you truly understood the big picture, you'd get my point that there's a decent chance Zach won't be around for the next decade and that we'll trade him for someone of similar talent who does fit. given his injury history, character issues and contract size, and given our purging of "bad character guys" and our experiences with broken down overpaid players, doesn't it seem pretty likely that our GM is going to unload him for equal value at the first good opportunity?
> 
> every time Zach scores, he's helping us take a tiny step toward a championship, if only because he is making himself more valuable as a trading asset.


What is your ideal gameplan then? Who will be our go-to guy to lead us to a championship? Do you think acquiring Richard Jefferson or Luol Deng is going to lead us to the promise land? 

What is this supposed path to championship glory that everyone is talking about and how does trading Zach for ______ lead us there?


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mook said:


> I'd definitely trade him for Marion or Melo. problem is that his value isn't at its highest right now. he's only had this awesome production for a few months. no responsible GM is going to acquire him for full value after such a short stretch of production. (maybe Isiah Thomas would, but then they have little I want besides Lee.)
> 
> our best hope is to gamble a little and keep him through this year, then trade him in the summer for a piece that fits.


I'd trade for Melo in a heartbeat....BUT....I don't think that anything that will help us get to the next level....will be attainable this year at all to be honest. 

throw us some names.....I wouldn't trade for Matrix or Deng or RJeff. Just not real big on those guys.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Zach is good.

The team is bad.

The team is not bad because Zach is not good. 

The team is bad because other players are not good.

Blaming everything bad on the only good player is bad.

But it's a Rip City tradition, nonetheless...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> What is this supposed path to championship glory that everyone is talking about and how does trading Zach for ______ lead us there?


By getting rid of Zach. No it's simple the future of this team lies in Roy and Aldridge. Others like Jack, Webster, Sergio and Travis also will likely continue to devvelop into legit NBA starters or better. I personally find it very unlikely that a PF like Zach, all Offense very limited Deffense and very limited concept of team play, is goig to be a key eliment in the teh end destination. In fact he can distract from the team gelling into a team. There is a thing and it if you will that the truely great players have, that Zach completely (IMO) lacks. The grreats make the players around them better. I have yet to see a situation where Zach really makes others better. Sure he pumps up our offensive stats, but then again the opponents offensive stats get pumped up too.

Ask yourself a simple question and then prove it. Does Zach make those around him better?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Zach is good.
> 
> The team is bad.
> 
> ...


Aldridge = Bad
Roy = Bad
Jack = Bad
Sergio = Bad
Joel = Bad
Martell = Bad
Travis = Bad
Ime = Bad
Jamaal = Bad

Yep you're right the whol team blows except Zach! Sound logic I'm actually starting to buy into it.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

Xericx said:


> I can't believe people are finding fault with Zach. Blows my mind...he's playing great...all star level IMO.


my thoughts too...

i dont see any of the arguments in here saying otherwise holding much water IMO.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Schilly said:


> By getting rid of Zach. No it's simple the future of this team lies in Roy and Aldridge. Others like Jack, Webster, Sergio and Travis also will likely continue to devvelop into legit NBA starters or better. I personally find it very unlikely that a PF like Zach, all Offense very limited Deffense and very limited concept of team play, is goig to be a key eliment in the teh end destination. In fact he can distract from the team gelling into a team. There is a thing and it if you will that the truely great players have, that Zach completely (IMO) lacks. The grreats make the players around them better. I have yet to see a situation where Zach really makes others better. Sure he pumps up our offensive stats, but then again the opponents offensive stats get pumped up too.
> 
> Ask yourself a simple question and then prove it. Does Zach make those around him better?


That's a total cop-out and a weak argument. 

Does Yao Ming make those around him better? Ooops..maybe not....perhaps Houston should trade him for Keith Boggans. Does Kobe make players on his team better? Nope...better trade him for Flip Murry. Does Iverson make players better? Who's play does he improve? He made the finals. Carried the entire team on his back. 

All those guys are guys that can lead a playoff team for a run....but do they make players better?

Almost all of our problems are problems with our youth being inexperienced. That's IT. Have some patience and good things will happen.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> When a team is stuggling, it seems the natural reaction is to single out anyone who is actually playing well - and blame them for everything.
> 
> Note I said "natural" reaction, not "smart"......it is still foolish and counterproductive!
> 
> ...


Even Michael couldn't have done it by himself. He had Scottie.

It's sort of like how DWade can't do it by himself either. He's dying out there without Shaq.

I already mentioned how the Rockets were winless last year when either TMac or Yao weren't out there.

Is Lebron the best player in the league? That's debateable, but I don't think he'll ever win it by himself.

Every team needs pieces, and 25.8 ppg 10.4reb 48% FG& while being double teamed every time he touches the ball, with no help, only 25 years old, still not fully recovered from a major surgery, and the youngest point guard tandem in the league would help every single team in the league.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Xericx said:


> Shilly said:
> 
> 
> > Ask yourself a simple question and then prove it. Does Zach make those around him better?
> ...


Wow, I thought I had read strawman arguments before, but that one takes the cake. Plus a complete dodge of the original question.

Zach is the last remaining JailBlazer. He's selfish, not a team player, and a bonehead. The biggest mistake of the last three years was giving him max money.

As far as I'm concerned, I hope he averages 40-20 for the next 30 games, so teams will be throwing ridiculous deals at the Blazers for him. I also hope that Steve Patterson is smart enough to secretly realize what a cancer Randolph is and ship his butt somewhere else when the right deal comes along.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Aldridge = Bad
> Roy = Bad
> Jack = Bad
> Sergio = Bad
> ...


If you want to talk logic, just because they are not good doesn't mean they are bad. Like that picture of that dog you posted awhile back, not everything is white and black. Mediocre is neither good nor bad. Roy is good but injured. Aldridge looks like he will be. The rest are mediocre at best, but young so potentially good in the future. But right now with Roy injured, there really aren't any good NBA players on the team other than Zach, and when he is out, the whole team doesn't have a good player. And logically, a team with no good players on it is bad.

And my logic is teams with only one good player are generally pretty bad too.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Wow, I thought I had read strawman arguments before, but that one takes the cake. Plus a complete dodge of the original question.
> 
> Zach is the last remaining JailBlazer. He's selfish, not a team player, and a bonehead. The biggest mistake of the last three years was giving him max money.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, I hope he averages 40-20 for the next 30 games, so teams will be throwing ridiculous deals at the Blazers for him. I also hope that Steve Patterson is smart enough to secretly realize what a cancer Randolph is and ship his butt somewhere else when the right deal comes along.


Its a loaded question, since we're taking into account how inexperienced the guys around him are to begin with. But I'll answer the question: Yes. he makes his teammates better when he's in the game when you compare the alternatives. He commands double teams on offense so naturally the rest of his teammates have more room to work. 

Here we go again with the Jailblazers crap again. Get over it people. Zach, on the court, is a hard working scoring machine. Once the offcourt crap starts affecting the oncourt, then you have basis to complain, but it isn't so I don't really care.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Aldridge = Bad
> Roy = Bad
> Jack = Bad
> Sergio = Bad
> ...


Most are below average starters or bench players. The team is well below average.

Zach is a top 10 (maybe top 5) player at his position.

Many of those guys have potential to be good players, but if you look at it hollistically, the overall talent level of the team besides Zach is very bad. There's not a single player that has proven themselves as an above average starter. Let that one sink in for a second.

I realize that "good" and "bad" are overly simplistic labels, but I'm just trying to cut through the bull.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Xericx said:


> I'd trade for Melo in a heartbeat....BUT....I don't think that anything that will help us get to the next level....will be attainable this year at all to be honest.
> 
> throw us some names.....I wouldn't trade for Matrix or Deng or RJeff. Just not real big on those guys.


I'd seriously consider Deng or Marion. I don't think Marion is plausible, though, since Phoenix isn't interested in paying out more big contracts. Besides, Zach + Amare sounds like a recipe for disaster. Jefferson doesn't do it for me. 

I'd also seriously consider taking back a bad contract/serviceable but not great SF and lottery picks. 

I'm not completely sold that Randolph can't be part of a championship team, either. Nowitzki is a lousy defender too, yet he nearly led his team to a ring last year. the difference is that Dallas surrounds him with the right pieces, including good-to-great defenders at every other position. Portland surrounds Zach with kids, walking injuries and NBDL players. 

the criticism on Dirk was that he wouldn't use his size to mix it up. last year he added that to his arsenal after years of playing on the perimeter, and he was a huge force. 

the knock on Zach is that he can't pass well. who's to say he can't improve on that part of his game? it's not like he hasn't made massive strides in that department already this year. 

maybe we'll trade him and maybe we won't. the important thing is he's having a blockbuster year, and that can only be good news to us Blazer fans.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I hope he averages 40-20 for the next 30 games, so teams will be throwing ridiculous deals at the Blazers for him. I also hope that Steve Patterson is smart enough to secretly realize what a cancer Randolph is and ship his butt somewhere else when the right deal comes along.


If Zach averages 40-20 for the next 30 games and the Blazers trade him for anyone, it officially becomes the worst trade in sports history. How are you going to put down someone argument as being brainless, and follow it up with something even more so?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ZBoFanatic said:


> If Zach averages 40-20 for the next 30 games and the Blazers trade him for anyone, it officially becomes the worst trade in sports history. How are you going to put down someone argument as being brainless, and follow it up with something even more so?




What you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to let yourself be open to, is that this team without Zach is a better TEAM. For instance, put Joe Johnson on this team last night, and Zach on the Hawks and we win that game. 

Zach is a great scorer, but that's all he is. To me that's not a bad thing, but it's certainly not what you want to build around.

If Zach averaged 40-20 as you say and we traded him for an all-star SF the Blazers would win more games than if we didn't do that. 

Mark it down now.......Zach will be in trouble with the law again. Trade him before it hurts his value


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Trade Zach . . . so we would be forced to watch a line up of young players getting schooled every night. For what . . . aparently because Zach is a black hole who makes players around him worse. So basically, give up a proven scorer in hopes that non-proven players will develop into something better than the proven player.

I know this franchise is committed to developing the youth, but I think, or at least hope, there is some cut off point where every decision made is not with the blind hope of our young players reaching their potential.

Didn't we learn our lesson of passing on Paul to allow room for Telfair to grow?


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> What you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to let yourself be open to, is that this team without Zach is a better TEAM. For instance, put Joe Johnson on this team last night, and Zach on the Hawks and we win that game.
> 
> Zach is a great scorer, but that's all he is. To me that's not a bad thing, but it's certainly not what you want to build around.
> 
> ...


MM, Zach's not capable of 40-20 for 30 straight games. Wilt may have been, but that's debateable. If Zach averaged 40-20, you would have the most dominant player in the league, if not in NBA history.



mediocre man said:


> What you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to let yourself be open to, is that this team without Zach is a better TEAM. For instance, put Joe Johnson on this team last night, and Zach on the Hawks and we win that game.


MM, I'm open to anything. But in that quote, the first line is what the debate of this entire thread has been about, and the second line is NOT an example of the first line, in fact it's impossible to prove that.

If you are under the impression that I don't think there are better fits for the team then Zach, you're implying something that I've never said once in my 600 posts. Read all of them if you want to.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> What you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to let yourself be open to, is that this team without Zach is a better TEAM. For instance, put Joe Johnson on this team last night, and Zach on the Hawks and we win that game.


Why? That is rediculous, it just is. 

When Zach was NOT in the game, we got creamed. How were we a better team when no one could guard Joe Johnson last night or score? 

When he was playing and getting the ball, we came back...then Outlaw and Jack started taking ill advised shots


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

This thread has devolved to the point where it's just crying and whining that everyone else just can't see the obvious. Zach is good, Zach is bad. It's just a matter if you think his positives outweigh his negatives. Some people do, some don't. I don't. It's plain as day to me. He's negatively impacting not only the present day state of the team but jeopardizing the development of the future nucleus of what I believe can be a very, very good team. In my opinion, if you can't see that, you have buried your head in the sand over his stats. I am happy for those stats as well, but only because they raise his trade value.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> What you don't seem to understand, or are unwilling to let yourself be open to, is that this team without Zach is a better TEAM. For instance, put Joe Johnson on this team last night, and Zach on the Hawks and we win that game.


Put Zach and Joe Johnson on a team together, and it might win a lot of games. The problem with the Blazers isn't that it has Zach, it's that it doesn't have anyone else with notable ability at the moment.

Zach has major flaws in his game, but he still contributes a lot. I'm happy to see him traded if we get a better player in return, but I think the Zach-blaming is absurd. This team without him would be really really bad.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

chris_in_pdx said:


> This thread has devolved to the point where it's just crying and whining that everyone else just can't see the obvious. Zach is good, Zach is bad. It's just a matter if you think his positives outweigh his negatives. Some people do, some don't. I don't. It's plain as day to me. He's negatively impacting not only the present day state of the team but jeopardizing the development of the future nucleus of what I believe can be a very, very good team. In my opinion, if you can't see that, you have buried your head in the sand over his stats. I am happy for those stats as well, but only because they raise his trade value.


How is he jeopardizing the future nucleaus development? He's 25 years old and can be part of the nucleaus. he has a role. Get boards and put the ball in the bucket, which he does. 

Let Aldridge play center...what's wrong with that? He'll bulk up...LA was the defenisve player of the year in his division? Of our young nucleaus, no one is particularly adapt at taking the BULK of the scoring load as a go to guy in the mold of an offensive threat. 

Who is that guy that Zach is hindering development? Him and LA can play at the same time. Don't see the problem.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> This thread has devolved to the point where it's just crying and whining that everyone else just can't see the obvious. Zach is good, Zach is bad. It's just a matter if you think his positives outweigh his negatives. Some people do, some don't. I don't. It's plain as day to me. He's negatively impacting not only the present day state of the team but jeopardizing the development of the future nucleus of what I believe can be a very, very good team. In my opinion, if you can't see that, you have buried your head in the sand over his stats. I am happy for those stats as well, but only because they raise his trade value.


In the last 2 years, the team is winless when Zach hasn't played. That's my favorite Zach stat.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Zach is good.
> 
> The team is bad.
> 
> ...


You nailed it!

Some people don't grasp the difference between the 2 following statements:

1) You can't win a title with Zach on your team.

2) You can't win a title if Zach is your best player.

Take out "Zach" and substitute "Pippen" or "Worthy" or "McHale", and maybe it will become clearer! Even superduperstars don't win titles without support. Just ask KG.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Zach is the last remaining JailBlazer. He's selfish, not a team player, and a bonehead. The biggest mistake of the last three years was giving him max money.


Now we come to it.  

As I predicted over a year ago, once you let the witch-hunt begin, it must always find new witches to burn at the stake. Witch-hunts never voluntarily end. When Zach is purged, who will the next target be?


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Now we come to it.
> 
> As I predicted over a year ago, once you let the witch-hunt begin, it must always find new witches to burn at the stake. Witch-hunts never voluntarily end. When Zach is purged, who will the next target be?


So you are saying that the Stoudamire/Rasheed/Bonzi years were "witch-hunts"?

Wow, you are a bit out of touch with reality.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

By no means does Zach deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as some of these names, but just think about the connection of the names on the left versus the names on the right.

Michael Jordan | Scottie Pippen
Karl Malone | John Stockton
Charles Barkley | Kevin Johnson
Amare Stoudamire, Shawn Marion | Steve Nash
Kenyon Martin | Jason Kidd
Clyde Drexler | Terry Porter
David Robinson | Tim Duncan
Shaquille O'Neal | Penny Hardaway
Dwayne Wade | Shaquille O'Neal, Gary Payton
Shawn Kemp | Gary Payton
Elton Brand | Sam Cassell
Kevin Garnett | Sam Cassell


They all have had different levels of success, some higher than others, but in every case, the player(s) on the left was the marquee scorer, but the player on the right is the one that made the team as efficient as possible.

The players on the left have played on god awful teams, the players on the right haven't, but you can't contend unless you have both.

Zach's never had the type of player on the right, and I'm not necessarily saying that he is going to be as good of a scorer as anyone was on the left will be in their primes, but I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that he has a similar role to them, and that he'd have great, great value on any team that has a reliable triple threat option on the team.

After Michael retired the first time, Scottie still led the Bulls to 50 wins. Do you think the Bulls would have won that much if Scottie would have retired instead? No, but that doesn't mean that MJ wasn't better than Scottie.

There certain roles that certain types of players fit the mold of for championship caliber teams. There is, by no means, only one type of blueprint for success. However, I do believe that if Brandon Roy turns out to be the player that we all hope he turns out to be, I do believe that 2 of the pieces of a championship contending blueprint are in place.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> You nailed it!
> 
> Some people don't grasp the difference between the 2 following statements:
> 
> ...


And just to make things clear... and I will use your quote as a good reference Oldmangrouch, the player on the left is not necessarily the best player, but the designated scorer, whereas the guy on the right is the triple threat player. It's not great player and good player, but just 2 different kinds of players that need the other to maximize production.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

nice posts, ZBF.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> So you are saying that the Stoudamire/Rasheed/Bonzi years were "witch-hunts"?
> 
> Wow, you are a bit out of touch with reality.


So, you see no difference between: " we need to dump Damon because he is a below average player with a monster contract" and "we need to get rid of Damon because we object to his personal life".


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> So, you see no difference between: " we need to dump Damon because he is a below average player with a monster contract" and "we need to get rid of Damon because we object to his personal life".


No, I dont. Especially since if they kept those three around, the Blazers would be playing to crowds counted in the hundreds right now.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

mook said:


> nice posts, ZBF.


Thanks!


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> No, I dont. Especially since if they kept those three around, the Blazers would be playing to crowds counted in the hundreds right now.


Then we will have to agree to disagree. I am a believer in MYOB, and I have no patience for the supposed defenders of public morality. I don't know any of the Blazers personally, and won't pretend I know them based on media BS. 

As for fans not coming to the game if Sheed was still here - I don't see anybody in Detroit staging a boycot over the guy! Your comment says more about Portland "fans" than it does about Sheed.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

It would be foolish if we traded away Zach without getting back a player who is as big of a scoring threat. As hard of a pill as it is for a some of you to swallow, without Zach we would have maybe 1 win this year.


----------



## infiidel (Aug 15, 2006)

What is not to like about ZBO? He is the only player in the league averaging 25/10! I guess he is selfishly gobbling up all those rebounds. He is shooting almost 50% from the field(48.2). Do you have any idea how unstoppable he would be if he wasn't being triple teamed every possession? He is the dominant low post scorer in the NBA, and by the way can hit the three too. 

I guess his defence is not as good as Emeka Okafor, so we should trade him for a draft pick.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Fork said:


> Do you see how ludicrous this sounds? With Roy out and Webster struggling, he's trying to score more. Hmmm...imagine that.


How about this? With Roy out and Webster struggling, he commits to play some great defense and help on that side of the court as well. But of course he won't and we'll continue to get killed by people waltzing past him to the hoop. 

Trade Zbo while his value is high. We've got a great player in LaMarcus waiting. He brings speed, defense and soft shooting touch as well.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> How about this? With Roy out and Webster struggling, he commits to play some great defense and help on that side of the court as well. But of course he won't and *we'll continue to get killed by people waltzing past him to the hoop*.
> 
> Trade Zbo while his value is high. We've got a great player in LaMarcus waiting. He brings speed, defense and soft shooting touch as well.


Stats don't bear that out.

Looking at PER ratings by position:

Portland:

PG: 17
SG: 10.9
SF: 11.9
PF: 20.3
C: 18.2

Opponents:
PG: 15.5
SG: 22.5
SF: 21.7
PF: 18.2
C: 13

So, our PGs are outplaying their opponents by 1.5 PER per game. PFs outplay their opponents by 2.1. Center is our best relative position, we're up by 5.2. (Zach's PF PER difference is 6.2, best of any of our starters. So, opponents are clearly not 'waltzing past him' very often. Or at least not often enough to make him a liability on the court.)

We're getting killed by SGs and SFs, not by PFs. As I, and seemingly dozens of other people, have already said, if you can surround Zach with better players he's a VERY valuable part of a good team.

What's the main difference between Carlos Boozer and Zach Randolph? Boozer has better teammates, which is who he's playing for the team with the best record in the NBA.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> So, you see no difference between: " we need to dump Damon because he is a below average player with a monster contract" and "we need to get rid of Damon because we object to his personal life".



What about "We need to get rid of Damon because he is a ball hogging, volume shooting low percentage scorer who can't defend anybody."

Below average player was just way too politically correct.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Fork said:


> Stats don't bear that out.
> 
> Looking at PER ratings by position:
> 
> ...



Well said Fork. I think part of this problem will dissappear when Roy comes back, and hopefully when he comes back the SF production will go up from the attention he draws.


----------

