# Random Thought



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Our players and the draft. We currently have 5 players on our roster who were drafted in the top 8 within the last 3 drafts!

2005 - 6th pick, Martell
2005 - 8th pick, Channing
2006 - 2nd pick, LaMarcus
2006 - 6th pick, Brandon
2007 - 1st pick, Greg

Future looks good fellas. Damn good.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

LA Clippers:

1998 Michael Olowokandi, #1
1999 Lamar Odom, #2
2000 Darius Miles, #3
2001 Tyson Chandler, #2 (Traded for Elton Brand)
2002 Chris Wilcox, #8
2003 Chris Kaman, #6
2004 Shaun Livingston, #4

We've got a nice core of young players, but as the Clippers demonstrate, that doesn't necessarily translate into a contender.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> Our players and the draft. We currently have 5 players on our roster who were drafted in the top 8 within the last 3 drafts!
> 
> 2005 - 6th pick, Martell
> 2005 - 8th pick, Channing
> ...



This was actually posted on o-live by Freeman. He also included Miles, Joel and Raef all drafted top 10 or higher.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

E_Blazer, your clipper players never all played together and are seperated by 7 years. Our core ONLY has played together (except for Frye) and are seperated by 3 years.

MM - Joel, Miles and Raef have no business being on the draft bragging rights list, lol.

O'doyle rules.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Resume said:


> E_Blazer, your clipper players never all played together and are seperated by 7 years. Our core ONLY has played together (except for Frye) and are seperated by 3 years.
> 
> MM - Joel, Miles and Raef have no business being on the draft bragging rights list, lol.
> 
> O'doyle rules.




Why, they have all accomplished more in their careers than Webster, but you included him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Any team that's one of the worst teams in the NBA for three straight years SHOULD have a nice nest of young players.

We've struck gold with Roy, it appears, and got very lucky with the Oden pick, but Webster was a reach, if not a bust just yet, and given that we'd lucked into the #3 spot in that draft it's sad that he and Jack are all we have to show for it.

The team's future looks bright, but I think you could add Oden to just about any bad team from the last three years and they'd be able to make a similarly positive claim.

Ed O.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Any team that's one of the worst teams in the NBA for three straight years SHOULD have a nice nest of young players.
> 
> We've struck gold with Roy, it appears, and got very lucky with the Oden pick, but Webster was a reach, if not a bust just yet, and given that we'd lucked into the #3 spot in that draft it's sad that he and Jack are all we have to show for it.
> 
> ...



No mention of Aldridge Ed? I think we struck gold with him as well


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Yeah and they are all like 5 years at least older then him. I'll take Martell and his potential over any of the other 3 mentioned careers anyday.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Any team that's one of the worst teams in the NBA for three straight years SHOULD have a nice nest of young players.
> 
> We've struck gold with Roy, it appears, and got very lucky with the Oden pick, but Webster was a reach, if not a bust just yet, and given that we'd lucked into the #3 spot in that draft it's sad that he and Jack are all we have to show for it.
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention All-Rookie first team Aldridge, and in doing so, you made your post not even worth the time I took to read it.

Congrats.

:worthy:


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

e_blazer1 said:


> LA Clippers:
> 
> 1998 Michael Olowokandi, #1
> 1999 Lamar Odom, #2
> ...



Wow the clips coulda/shoulda had...

1998: Dirk/Vince Carter/Paul Pierce
1999: Shawn Marion
2000: Michael Redd (the 2000 draft was weakest EVER, everyone passed on Redd, next best...Mike Miller?)
2001: Pau Gasol/Joe Johnson (the Brand deal was a steal though)/Gilbert Arenas(see Redd)
2002: Amare Stoudemire/Caron Butler
2003: Kirk Hienrich/TJ Ford
2004: Luol Deng/ Andre Igoudala/Al Jefferson

TJ Ford/Vince Carter/Shawn Marion/Pau Gasol/Amare Stoudemire

or

Kirk Hienrich/Caron Butler/joe Johnson/Dirk/Al Jefferson


in further researching, i could not believe Larry Bird went #6 in 1978, we had the #1 that year and selected Mychal Thompson.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> No mention of Aldridge Ed? I think we struck gold with him as well


The Blazers had the worst record in the NBA. Getting a player the level of Aldridge is part of the "worst team in the NBA" point I was making.

Roy? Atypical, in that we acquired an extra lottery pick.

Oden? We totally lucked into not only the top pick but the top pick in one of the best years to have the top pick in the last 20 years.

That's why I mentioned those two guys and not Aldridge.

Ed O.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

No you just forgot Aldridge lol just admit it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Resume said:


> No you just forgot Aldridge lol just admit it.


Why would I forget it? I didn't mention Frye, either. Did I forget him?

It's ridiculous. Just because you don't understand the structure of my post doesn't mean I made an error. When I make a mistake, I admit it.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I'm getting tempted to "time capsule" some of these posts to pull out in another four or five years.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Why would I forget it? I didn't mention Frye, either. Did I forget him?
> 
> It's ridiculous. Just because you don't understand the structure of my post doesn't mean I made an error. When I make a mistake, I admit it.
> 
> Ed O.


LOL

Just admit that you forgot Aldridge. Otherwise you would have never mentioned the #3 pick in the previous draft turning into Webster and Jack.

I have no doubt that posts like this are from true fans, but the rampant negativity/pessimism does get old. The Aldridge/Roy draft will turn out to be one talked about for years, yet you don't even mention Aldridge. \

:clap2:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> Just admit that you forgot Aldridge. Otherwise you would have never mentioned the #3 pick in the previous draft turning into Webster and Jack.


I mentioned Jack and Webster because it was a bad haul for ending up with the #3 pick (which was a good bit of luck).

I mentioned Roy because it was a good move, and atypical for teams like the Blazers (one of the worst in the league 3 or 4 years in a row).

I mentioned Oden because we got freaking incredibly lucky to get him.

I did *not* forget Aldridge. You're either calling me a liar or you're ****ing idiotic if you think otherwise. The point of my post was not to judge the quality of the prospects (clearly, they're a great group), but to point out our team's core is different than other teams that might be as bad as Portland has been for as long as we have been.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ya know, it's really getting old, this business of people misunderstanding posts, and then even when said posts get explained, other posters seem to stick their fingers in their ears (or in this case, over their eyes) and blab on as if it's all about trying to cover mistakes.

Maybe it's an age or culture thing that the _expected_ response when some kind of mistake gets made is some convoluted rationalization. For what it's worth, there _are_ still a bunch of us who gladly own up when we make mistakes and having interacted with Ed for several years now, I can assure you that he _is_ that sort. He's also _much_ more careful with the words he chooses than most of us on this site. Again, Papag and Resume, you're both just digging yourselves deeper....


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> ... but the rampant negativity/pessimism does get old.


how do you feel about posters nitpicking/calling out others for petty bleep? Is that your idea of super fresh?

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

And that said, I still think your initial point stands, Resume. While being a high pick doesn't necessarily mean you can play, the Blazers _have_ done a pretty decent job adding young talent recently, and as you say, many of these players were indeed drafted relatively high. There still are plenty of question marks, but assuming that Roy, Aldridge, and Oden are solid and even a few of Webster, Jack, Blake, Frye, Outlaw, Rodriguez, McRoberts, Fernandez and the like work out, _and_ given that the team may have the chance to add a serious free agent in the next few years, this team has a chance to be really special.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> how do you feel about posters nitpicking/calling out others for petty bleep? Is that your idea of super fresh?
> 
> STOMP


Stomp... you're my hero.

:lol: :clap2:


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Ed O - I'm not trying to call you out and I know your a big Blazer fan. I have a wager for you if your a betting man. I was glad to see Zach traded and would have traded him for a lot less then we got. My wager is I would bet you LMA beats Zach in at least 4 of the 5 categories this year: PPG, RPG, APG, SPG and BPG. I was going to say 3 out of 5 but I think that is almost a sure thing for LMA. Zach only has a chance in PPG and RPG but I'm pretty sure LMA is going to be better then you think this year and Zach is going to be a lot worse. If your a betting man I would wager a case of your favorite beer or something else similar. I don't want to bet to much and if your not a betting man just a friendly wager.:cheers:


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Actually I'm thinking Zach's got a pretty good shot with assists, Tortimer, but no, I'm not a betting man and if I were... well, I'd be pretty on the fence.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Actually I'm thinking Zach's got a pretty good shot with assists, Tortimer, but no, I'm not a betting man and if I were... well, I'd be pretty on the fence.


I was asking Ed O to bet because he seems to be upset we traded Zach and maybe doesn't think LMA is going to do as well as I think he is this year. I would bet anybody though.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> Ed O - I'm not trying to call you out and I know your a big Blazer fan. I have a wager for you if your a betting man. I was glad to see Zach traded and would have traded him for a lot less then we got. My wager is I would bet you LMA beats Zach in at least 4 of the 5 categories this year: PPG, RPG, APG, SPG and BPG. I was going to say 3 out of 5 but I think that is almost a sure thing for LMA. Zach only has a chance in PPG and RPG but I'm pretty sure LMA is going to be better then you think this year and Zach is going to be a lot worse. If your a betting man I would wager a case of your favorite beer or something else similar. I don't want to bet to much and if your not a betting man just a friendly wager.:cheers:


I don't think your wager offer is really a fair reflection as to why some disliked the trade. The root of that disagreement is the feeling that Zach (as an asset) was worth more then Frye and a salary dump. And while LA may top Zach in a number of important statistical categories this season, he may have been able to do that playing alongside him as well.

btw... personally I didn't dislike the trade as much as some because I've like Frye's game since his Zona days. For me to truly endorse that trade, Pritchard/management will probably have to stay true to their stated intentions of cultivating capspace for 2009 and then use that opportunity wisely.

STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> how do you feel about posters nitpicking/calling out others for petty bleep? Is that your idea of super fresh?
> 
> STOMP


I just read the posts and respond to what I see.

If Ed O. is some sort of authority on the Blazers, I will anticipate his next suggestion that the team decided to implement.

Because frankly, most things I see him advocating in hindsight are in reaction to steps the team has just taken in order (presumably) to give itself a better chance to win.

As for digging my self deeper...whatever. He forgot to mention Aldridge; this makes his take silly IMO if we are evaluating drafts univerally instead of just cherry picking.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

The better bet, on some level, would be Zach vs. the first big off the bench, though that's not really fair either because Zach will almost certainly get more minutes than said bench player.

I guess my point is that Ed was looking forward to a 4 and 5 rotation of Zach, Aldridge, and Oden, and frankly, I was, too. What are Zach's biggest short-comings? defense, shot-blocking, and running maybe? That's what both Oden and Aldridge lead with. So it _might_ have been pretty magical.

On the other hand, the chemistry/culture stuff I take fairly seriously, too, (more than Ed and some others) and I can see where it might've made sense to Pritchard to really clean house. And given their plan to nab a name free agent in a few years and that they've been able to grab some promising young talent (in Frye, Jones, and particularly Fernandez) that might peek nicely with Roy, Aldridge and Oden, I'm okay and even excited by the moves. And, I still regret that we'll now never know what might've happened had Randolph been able to play with Alridge and Oden.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

**** it, I'm done. What's the process for setting up an Ignore again?


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> The better bet, on some level, would be Zach vs. the first big off the bench, though that's not really fair either because Zach will almost certainly get more minutes than said bench player.
> 
> I guess my point is that Ed was looking forward to a 4 and 5 rotation of Zach, Aldridge, and Oden, and frankly, I was, too. What are Zach's biggest short-comings? defense, shot-blocking, and running maybe? That's what both Oden and Aldridge lead with. So it _might_ have been pretty magical.
> 
> On the other hand, the chemistry/culture stuff I take fairly seriously, too, (more than Ed and some others) and I can see where it might've made sense to Pritchard to really clean house. And given their plan to nab a name free agent in a few years and that they've been able to grab some promising young talent (in Frye, Jones, and particularly Fernandez) that might peek nicely with Roy, Aldridge and Oden, I'm okay and even excited by the moves. And, I still regret that we'll now never know what might've happened had Randolph been able to play with Alridge and Oden.


I don't disagree with any of this, but my point that Aldridge was not even mentioned still remains. 

If this is what Ed O. meant, it is valid. But I can't make this assumption because he never mentioned the acquisition of Aldridge in his original commentary.

If you guys have some sort of mind-reading button, please do let me know. If not, I'll comment on obvious oversights time after time after time.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> **** it, I'm done. What's the process for setting up an Ignore again?


Oh brother...:chill:


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Ed O said:


> *I mentioned Jack and Webster because it was a bad haul for ending up with the #3 pick (which was a good bit of luck).*
> Ed O.



Yet you don't mention the Roy/Adridge combo, which came from getting the #4 pick (which was bad luck, wasn't it? :biggrin: ).

Point?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> I just read the posts and respond to what I see.
> 
> If Ed O. is some sort of authority on the Blazers, I will anticipate his next suggestion that the team decided to implement.
> 
> ...


Ed is a poster on the boards here who (like all of us) expresses his opinions on matters regarding the club. I've never read him claiming to be more then that let alone some sort of authority on the Blazers. 

We all just look at their moves and respond to what we see. That he has explained his logic as to why he left off listing Aldridge and yet you still won't let this pissy bleep go demonstrates that you've a personal issue with him and are trying to hold his feet to the fire.

Since I noticed it, is it my duty to ride you for mistyping univer*s*ally and publicly dismiss the rest of your thoughts as irrelevant? Geez, even if you add in LA to the initial post it doesn't change the crux of the argument. 

I'm really hoping we can curb this personal bleep and just talk hoops. Attack the post not the poster.

STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Ed is a poster on the boards here who (like all of us) expresses his opinions on matters regarding the club. I've never read him claiming to be more then that let alone some sort of authority on the Blazers.
> 
> We all just look at their moves and respond to what we see. That he has explained his logic as to why he left off listing Aldridge and yet you still won't let this pissy bleep go demonstrates that you've a personal issue with him and are trying to hold his feet to the fire.
> 
> ...


Fair enough, but I hope you read on long enough to see me question his inclusion of the 2005 draft w/out also including the entire 2006 draft. 

It seems like cherrypicking data IMO. :cheers:


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> Yet you don't mention the Roy/Adridge combo, which came from getting the #4 pick (which was bad luck, wasn't it? :biggrin: ).


Please explain how the Blazers attaining Roy came from getting the #4 pick.

STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Please explain how the Blazers attaining Roy came from getting the #4 pick.
> 
> STOMP


Please explain how getting Aldridge and Roy came from getting the #4 pick. Ed O. never quite got to this.

PAPAG


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

STOMP said:


> I don't think your wager offer is really a fair reflection as to why some disliked the trade. The root of that disagreement is the feeling that Zach (as an asset) was worth more then Frye and a salary dump. And while LA may top Zach in a number of important statistical categories this season, he may have been able to do that playing alongside him as well.
> 
> btw... personally I didn't dislike the trade as much as some because I've like Frye's game since his Zona days. For me to truly endorse that trade, Pritchard/management will probably have to stay true to their stated intentions of cultivating capspace for 2009 and then use that opportunity wisely.
> 
> STOMP


All that is true but you also have to take into consideration about LMA developing and being the #1 or #2 scoring option for the team. He wouldn't develop as fast being the first big off the bench. I'm not saying the starting front court of Oden/Zbo/Outlaw(or Jones) with LMA first off the bench isn't better then Oden/LMA/Outlaw with Frye first of the bench. I think it is closer then Ed O thinks and is better for our team for the future. I hated Zach and think we should get rid of him if we are ever going to win. I know Ed O doesn't agree and I just was making a friendly wager. The other thing is if Rudy comes over next year and Frye and Jones are part of our rotation we are going to be better then having Zach in our front court without those guys. I'm not upset or trying to make Ed O mad was just offering a wager if he thinks Zach is better then LMA.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> Please explain how getting Aldridge and Roy came from getting the #4 pick. Ed O. never quite got to this.


no he didn't, in fact he never said (or implied) any such thing. You did though. 



papag said:


> Yet you don't mention the Roy/Adridge combo, which came from getting the #4 pick


STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> no he didn't, in fact he never said (or implied) any such thing. You did though.
> 
> 
> 
> STOMP


I don't understand your post.

PAPAG


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> All that is true but you also have to take into consideration about LMA developing and being the #1 or #2 scoring option for the team. He wouldn't develop as fast being the first big off the bench.


why not?

A 30+ MPG role would have been there for LA had he been the 1st option off the bench backing up the 4 and 5, which isn't all that different then the 30+ MPG he'll be expected to play as a starter PF. Combine that with the same amount of practices (where a lot of player development takes place), the same amount of weightlifting/cardio training etc... and well, basically I don't agree about the importance of starting.

STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> why not?
> 
> *A 30+ MPG role would have been there for LA had he been the 1st option off the bench* backing up the 4 and 5, which isn't all that different then the 30+ MPG he'll be expected to play as a starter PF. Combine
> STOMP


Really? Outside of the starters, I don't see a Blazer who averaged more than 23 mpg last season.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams...g&order=true&season=2&seasonYear=2007&split=0

PAPAG


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> Really? Outside of the starters, I don't see a Blazer who averaged more than 23 mpg last season.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams...g&order=true&season=2&seasonYear=2007&split=0


The minutes distribution is not set in stone from season to season... right? 

There are 96 MPG between the 4 and 5 spots, or 32 MPG for 3 guys to split equally. It's my opinion that with a year under his belt LA is a decidedly better option then Joel, Outlaw, or Raef at either spot and would be first in line to earn those minutes. 



> PAPAG


good grief... now you've taken to mocking me?

STOMP


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

STOMP said:


> The minutes distribution is not set in stone from season to season... right?
> 
> *There are 96 MPG between the 4 and 5 spots, or 32 MPG for 3 guys to split equally.*


So basically you are asking LMA to play out of position at C in order to gain experience. Zach averaged 35 mpg last season. Drop three minutes and that still leaves LMA playing a position he won't be playing substantially for the next 10 years. Throw in Oden trying to learn the low block with trying to rotate from the high post. Yuck.



> *good grief... now you've taken to mocking me?
> 
> STOMP*


I'm not mocking you. I'm copying you.

PAPAG


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> So basically you are asking LMA to play out of position at C in order to gain experience. Zach averaged 35 mpg last season. Drop three minutes and that still leaves LMA playing a position he won't be playing substantially for the next 10 years. Throw in Oden trying to learn the low block with trying to rotate from the high post. Yuck.


He's not Zach. Having already seen him demonstrate high and low post game both in college and the NBA I guess I don't think that him improving at both is such a monumental task let alone a bad thing. In fact his inside/out versatility and ability to guard either spot are the biggest reasons I've been so high on him. I do not think he's out of position playing the 5 at all and am I'm looking forward to the Frye/LA frontcourt combo.



> I'm not mocking you. I'm copying you.
> 
> PAPAG


Ahhh, sorry about that then. I saw someone else do the sig thing at the end a while back and I thought it made sense too. It just stood out to me that you'd started doing this mid-thread.

STOMP


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Tortimer said:


> Ed O - I'm not trying to call you out and I know your a big Blazer fan. I have a wager for you if your a betting man. I was glad to see Zach traded and would have traded him for a lot less then we got. My wager is I would bet you LMA beats Zach in at least 4 of the 5 categories this year: PPG, RPG, APG, SPG and BPG. I was going to say 3 out of 5 but I think that is almost a sure thing for LMA. Zach only has a chance in PPG and RPG but I'm pretty sure LMA is going to be better then you think this year and Zach is going to be a lot worse. If your a betting man I would wager a case of your favorite beer or something else similar. I don't want to bet to much and if your not a betting man just a friendly wager.:cheers:




Zach will have better stats than Aldridge in at least two categories (PPG, RPG). They will be close in APG and SPG, and it could go either way. BPG Aldridge will win handily.

If you're saying that for me to win the bet Zach only has to win two of the five categories? Sure, I'll take that bet. I don't drink alcohol and generally don't bet for anything more than friendly wagers, but mark me down.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

papag said:


> Yet you don't mention the Roy/Adridge combo, which came from getting the #4 pick (which was bad luck, wasn't it? :biggrin: ).


Actually, I did mention Roy. Please re-read my post for what I actually typed, rather than what you think for some bizarre reason I "forgot" to type.



> Point?


Do you read my posts? Seriously.

Ed O.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

Ed O said:


> Zach will have better stats than Aldridge in at least two categories (PPG, RPG). They will be close in APG and SPG, and it could go either way. BPG Aldridge will win handily.
> 
> If you're saying that for me to win the bet Zach only has to win two of the five categories? Sure, I'll take that bet. I don't drink alcohol and generally don't bet for anything more than friendly wagers, but mark me down.
> 
> Ed O.


Ok just a friendly wager and I will remember even if your right. I think LMA will win all 5 categories and at least 4. APG won't be close because I think he is going to have more this year playing with Oden. I just think both LMA and Oden will be setting each other up and will get a couple APG from just passing to each other. It might take them a little while but at least by mid-season will be working well together. PPG and RPG are the only categories Zach has a chance to win IMO. I just don't think he will get as many shots which means less rebounds.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

STOMP said:


> why not?
> 
> A 30+ MPG role would have been there for LA had he been the 1st option off the bench backing up the 4 and 5, which isn't all that different then the 30+ MPG he'll be expected to play as a starter PF. Combine that with the same amount of practices (where a lot of player development takes place), the same amount of weightlifting/cardio training etc... and well, basically I don't agree about the importance of starting.
> 
> STOMP



I don't agree about starting. LMA this year IMO will have to be the #1 scoring option for the Blazers. Coming off the bench and playing with Zach some of the time of coarse would slow his development. With Zach gone it is a good thing for LMA and the whole team really. 

I was watching the old Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Buck teams on NBATV yesterday and last week. The thing I forgot about was how well that team passed the ball. The ball movement againt the Jazz in the game I watch yesterday was great to watch. They were making the pass before the player was even at the position they were passing. Porter and Drexler seemed to know right where to pass the ball without hardly even looking. I just think you need ball movement and always trying to work for a better shot then dumping it down to Zach and have everyone else stand around. Even if it was just as productive for the team I would rather watch a good passing unselfish team play then Zach. There is nothing wrong with going to a low post player like Zach but not everytime down the court. Duckworth was actually a decent low post player but he only got 3-4 low post attempts per game.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> I don't agree about starting. LMA this year IMO will have to be the #1 scoring option for the Blazers. Coming off the bench and playing with Zach some of the time of coarse would slow his development. With Zach gone it is a good thing for LMA and the whole team really.


I'm pretty sure that Brandon will be the focus of Portland's attack as he is an able playmaker both for himself and others. I see LA probably neck and neck with GO for the 2nd and 3rd scoring honors in the 15-18 PPG range. Why do you think that LaMarcus *has* to be the #1 option on offense? Like your claim that coming off the bench for the same amount of minutes as starting would for some mysterious reason curtail his development, I see little that supports this gut feeling of yours. 

The best short term on-court reasoning I can come up with on why to trade Zach for what they did was to make Greg the primary low post option from the get go. As it's best to only have one chef in the low post kitchen at a time, I think it's Greg who's development might have been slowed by ZR's presence. With those two paired I think it would have gotten pretty crowded inside limiting their individual effectiveness and Portland's attack. LaMarcus would have played the high post with either one and (going back to my crowded kitchen analogy) probably would have been more effectively paired with either guy then they would together. His ability to hit the mid-range jumper pulls an opposing Big out of the paint which would help any low post player operate.

That said, I read that Oden has been practicing his elbow jumpers off the backboard (alla Duncan) and hitting a high rate. Dude did shoot 80% from the FT line his Sr. year in HS so he has the mechanics to stretch the D out as well. From his comments, I'm sure the wrist injury limited what he was able to show at Ohio St. If this is so, we may see LA and GO switching off on who goes to the low block on offense when LaMarcus has a favorable matchup. 



> I was watching the old Drexler/Porter/Kersey/Buck teams on NBATV yesterday and last week. The thing I forgot about was how well that team passed the ball. The ball movement againt the Jazz in the game I watch yesterday was great to watch. They were making the pass before the player was even at the position they were passing. Porter and Drexler seemed to know right where to pass the ball without hardly even looking. I just think you need ball movement and always trying to work for a better shot then dumping it down to Zach and have everyone else stand around. Even if it was just as productive for the team I would rather watch a good passing unselfish team play then Zach. There is nothing wrong with going to a low post player like Zach but not everytime down the court. Duckworth was actually a decent low post player but he only got 3-4 low post attempts per game


Is the way that Nate used Zach last year (low post clearouts) the only way ZR was capable of contributing? Nope. In his first years with the Blazers we saw Zach be extremely effective off the ball working the offensive boards. I think improvement from the backcourt will translate into the better ball movement you crave... I want that too.

On those past Blazer teams you brought up, Uncle Cliffy was a pretty important piece as well. Despite coming off the bench backing up both Big spots, he developed quickly earning a huge contract from the Blazers. 

STOMP


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

STOMP said:


> I'm pretty sure that Brandon will continue to be the focus of Portland's attack as he is an able playmaker both for himself and others. I see LA probably neck and neck with GO for the 2nd and 3rd scoring honors in the 15-18 PPG range. Why do you think that LaMarcus *has* to be the #1 option on offense? Like your claim that coming off the bench for the same amount of minutes as starting would for some mysterious reason curtail his development, I see little that supports this gut feeling of yours actually being true.
> 
> The best short term on-court reasoning I can come up with on why to trade Zach for what they did was to make Greg the primary low post option from the get go. I think it's Greg who's development might have been slowed by ZR's presence, as it's best to only have one chef in the low post kitchen at a time. With those two paired I think it would have gotten pretty crowded inside limiting their individual effectiveness and Portland's attack. LaMarcus would have likely played the high post with either one and (going back to my crowded kitchen analogy) probably would have been more effectively paired with either guy then they would together. His ability to hit the mid-range jumper pulls an opposing Big out of the paint which would project to help any low post player operate.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you are saying for the most part. Though I do think it will between Roy and LMA for the #1/#2 option with Oden #3. Maybe I'm wrong but I think it is going to be fairly close but think LMA might score a little more then Roy. Even if Roy scores a little more it will be because like you said will be controlling the ball and being the playmaker.


----------



## Tortimer (Jun 4, 2007)

STOMP said:


> Uncle Cliffy was an important piece on those teams as well. Despite coming off the bench backing up both Big spots he developed quickly and has enjoyed a 20 year run in the league.
> 
> STOMP



I liked Cliff and he was an important piece to that team. He did struggle in the playoffs for the most part though. Kersey and Porter raised their game in the playoffs and Cliff always seemed to not play that well. I think if Cliff would have even played his normal game we would have possibly won a championship.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

papag said:


> Oh brother...:chill:


So, here's the thing, papag -- you're accusing someone a both trust and consider a friend of lying, based on pixels we're all seeing, and as usual, when I look at Ed's pixels, they make perfect sense to me. That they apparently don't to you and that you're willing to jump to the conclusion that he must be lying even after he has explained himself to the satisfaction of others (at least Stomp and myself) leaves me no longer interested in whatever you may have to say.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Tortimer said:


> I liked Cliff and he was an important piece to that team. He did struggle in the playoffs for the most part though. Kersey and Porter raised their game in the playoffs and Cliff always seemed to not play that well. I think if Cliff would have even played his normal game we would have possibly won a championship.


I suppose it's possible Cliff would have made the difference. I agree that he seemed to under-perform when it mattered most, though I think he got over that after he left the Blazers.

And sort of back to topic, I can imagine Aldridge having played a similar role on this team behind Zach and Oden -- even without Zach I think Aldridge will likely be playing a lot of center this year. Hopefully someone like Frye will end-up in that role, as I think a tighter rotation would help this team _unless_ Nate's willing to run them so much that a larger rotation makes sense. I'd much prefer the running but I'm not confident we'll see it.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> So, here's the thing, papag -- *you're accusing someone a both trust and consider a friend of lying*, based on pixels we're all seeing, and as usual, when I look at Ed's pixels, they make perfect sense to me. That they apparently don't to you and that you're willing to jump to the conclusion that he must be lying even after he has explained himself to the satisfaction of others (at least Stomp and myself) leaves me no longer interested in whatever you may have to say.


I never called him a liar, I said he didn't even mention Aldridge in his initial post, which if you look at the thread you will see is true.

I'm not sure how this makes me a liar or how you would jump to the conclusion that I am calling him a liar.

I suggest you read the pixels with a little more depth and understanding.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I suppose it's possible Cliff would have made the difference. I agree that he seemed to under-perform when it mattered most, though I think he got over that after he left the Blazers.
> 
> And sort of back to topic, I can imagine Aldridge having played a similar role on this team behind Zach and Oden -- *even without Zach I think Aldridge will likely be playing a lot of center this year.* Hopefully someone like Frye will end-up in that role, as I think a tighter rotation would help this team _unless_ Nate's willing to run them so much that a larger rotation makes sense. I'd much prefer the running but I'm not confident we'll see it.


What makes you think this? My follow-up question is do you see the rotation adjusting to Aldridge being in the C spot or Aldridge adjusting to the set offense in place of Oden. By this I mean will the offense become high-post centered when Adridge is occupying the 5, or will Aldridge roll down into the low block and play as an Oden-type center.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

papag said:


> What makes you think this? My follow-up question is do you see the rotation adjusting to Aldridge being in the C spot or Aldridge adjusting to the set offense in place of Oden. By this I mean will the offense become high-post centered when Adridge is occupying the 5, or will Aldridge roll down into the low block and play as an Oden-type center.



Interesting question.

If LaMarcus is allowed to play a high-post center, he is our 2nd best option in the pivot. Even if he is shoe-horned into the low-post roll, I (for one) would still rather have him out there than Pryz. 

I am very pessimistic about Frye, but if he has his head in the game, he is no worse than Pryz. With modest improvement, Outlaw will be better than both. In 2 years, McRoberts may well be better than all 3!

With that kind of depth at the 4, it makes sense to let LaMarcus slide over to the 5 part time.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Interesting question.
> 
> If LaMarcus is allowed to play a high-post center, he is our 2nd best option in the pivot. Even if he is shoe-horned into the low-post roll, I (for one) would still rather have him out there than Pryz.
> 
> ...


My reason for asking this question is that I don't like the idea of LaMarcus spending his time at PF in a high-post area and then having to move down to the low post when Greg gets his rest. If the idea is to build for a title, I'd like to see LMA in a high-post situation as much as possible, even at the risk of putting an offensive clod like Joel in the low block or an undersized Frye.

Watching LaMarcus hit those 17' jumpers last season, and then watching him have the ability to crash the offensive boards with a running start, is something I want to see as often as I can. I don't see the need to play him literally in Oden's place on the floor. Let's let him get very comfortable working for the PF spot.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

papag said:


> So basically you are asking LMA to play out of position at C in order to gain experience. Zach averaged 35 mpg last season. Drop three minutes and that still leaves LMA playing a position he won't be playing substantially for the next 10 years. Throw in Oden trying to learn the low block with trying to rotate from the high post.
> 
> PAPAG


This is where some of us are never going to agree with you. If Oden had wound up in Boston, in a couple of years LaMarcus would have been the 3rd best center in the western conf! 

People forget that LaMarcus is just a kid himself. He is naturally going to bulk up as he gets older, and he has already shown the skills to play high post center.


----------



## Nitestalker (May 3, 2004)

drexlersdad said:


> in further researching, i could not believe Larry Bird went #6 in 1978, we had the #1 that year and selected Mychal Thompson.




I think its because Larry Bird wasnt gonna come out until after one more college season (I think he played against Magic in the finals of his college year and lost) and some of the teams wanted more immediate help. I vaguely remember Pacers wanting to draft Bird but since he wasnt gonna come immediately they traded it to Portland and drafted another guy. Lucky for the Celtics they were willing to wait another year.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> This is where some of us are never going to agree with you. If Oden had wound up in Boston, in a couple of years LaMarcus would have been the 3rd best center in the western conf!
> 
> People forget that LaMarcus is just a kid himself. He is naturally going to bulk up as he gets older, and he has already shown the skills to play high post center.


That's fair enough. Some of us feel Zach was hindering LMA's development; others think Zach could have made the team a more legitimate title contender in a few years without him being moved.

We'll never agree on the trade, but it doesn't mean either of us is wrong or right. 

One thing that I think we can agree on is that it is waaayyy too long a time until training camps starts.

:cheers:


----------

