# Why all the hate on Roy??



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

he is possibly the most nba ready of all the players
he is well rounded and solid in every apsect of his game
he isnt bad at anything...except his 3 point range...which can be worked on
he can play point guard or the 2 guard
he can play D


why would people hate on this pick???

i dont get it

im not making a push to grab him but i am saying if we got him i would be happy

the bulls are looking to possibly draft him

one gm said this about Roy:


> "Roy is this year's Chris Paul if he starts," one general manager said last week. "When it's all said and done, he's the rookie of the year. He doesn't quite have NBA three-point range yet, but he's got everything else and is ready to go."


that is pretty reassuring to me

im happy with Roy if we take him....start him and have web come off the bench behind him....trade juan and blake somewhere for a big man


im all for it


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Hate? I don't know anything about any hate. I can't see myself ever hating Roy. 

Although I won't be too pleased with Nate if he convinces Patterson to draft Roy over any one of Gay, Morrison, Bargnani, Aldridge, or Thomas. 

And it's not because I'm so delusional that I think I have a better eye for talent than the 6 guys who will be involved in making that decision (I'm sure I don't). 

I selfishly want the Blazers to draft the guy with the most potential to help lead us to a championship -- to draft for the long-run. Whichever of those 5 players they select, I will be confident that they took their best shot at evaluating their potential to accomplish that. 

If they take Roy, my assumption will be that Nate selfishly took a guy who might help the team win a few more games this year, and that to him that's more important than our long-term success. 

As an aside, I wondered if they reason they got rid of Nash early might have been because he may have made it clear Roy would not be his choice, and that conflicted with Nate's preference. Just a little possible drama that popped into my head, nothing more.

Just my 2 pesos.

:cheers:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

dwood615 said:


> he is possibly the most nba ready of all the players
> he is well rounded and solid in every apsect of his game
> he isnt bad at anything...except his 3 point range...which can be worked on
> he can play point guard or the 2 guard
> he can play D


1. If we were looking to win a championship, picking the most "NBA ready" player might be more of a priority. Taking the best player in the long-run should be the priority, and I don't think anyone thinks Roy will be that guy.

2/3. Solid in every aspect, but not great one area. Do you use the #4 pick on a player who is likely to be a #3-4 option on you team? I don't know.

4. We have a logjam at PG, so he's a SG in our system.

5. Good defender, not on the same defensive level as Rudy Gay.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://www.google.com/trends?q=barg...on+roy,+tyrus+thomas&ctab=0&geo=all&date=2006

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=275947

A group of diehard basketball fans can't go 2 months without looking for another prospect to decipher. 

If you're really feeling worried, just remember that Pritchard has watched every available minute of tape on these guys and will know how to draft BPA when the time comes.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Another guy in favor of Roy:

http://draftexpress.com/myscouting.php?page=view&id=86

The scouting report on Gay says he has problems defending smaller perimeter players. I think that shows that Gay is not a lock-down defender. Roy shows more on defense than Gay, at least while guarding the wing positions.

Gay is a better shot blocker and plays the passing lanes well due to his athleticism.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Jameer Nelson


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Been saying it all along...Roy will win Rookie of the Year. He may ot be the best player in 5 years but he will be next year. Although Morrison is looking danm strong to. 

It's simply a matter of do you want to take a risk on Gay, Thomas etc...do you feel they will realize their potential..and if they do how quickly will they do so.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dwood615 said:


> he is possibly the most nba ready of all the players
> he is well rounded and solid in every apsect of his game
> he isnt bad at anything...except his 3 point range...which can be worked on
> he can play point guard or the 2 guard
> ...



I am not a Roy supporter. I hate him at #4. Yes he's solid, and like you say he's not bad at anything. The problem is he's not great at anything. Portland DOES NOT NEED anymore role players. Pick someone that has a chance to make a difference and fill in the gaps with vets. 


Webster has more upside, a better shooting stroke, and is easily as good of a defender as Roy, so why bring him off the bench?



If you want love for Roy go visit the Blazers forum on O-live. The lemmings over there will support anything the Blazers tell them to.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

I don't think it's hate for Roy, just that at #4 it's a little to high. Also, Roy would compete against Webster at SG, why do we need that? Roy ISN'T going to be the next Chris Paul. I don't think that happens 2 yrs in a row. I'd go with Gay or Adam since they are a few inches taller than Roy and can take Miles spot when he's gone this summer.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

dwood615 said:


> he is possibly the most nba ready of all the players
> he is well rounded and solid in every apsect of his game
> he isnt bad at anything...except his 3 point range...which can be worked on
> he can play point guard or the 2 guard
> he can play D


Morrison is possibly the most NBA ready of all the players. On the Blazers (sans Miles), Morrison is a rookie of the year candidate at SF. Roy, if he plays, would take time away from Martell, our best hope for a future all-star. 

Martell isn't bad at anything either. And he's great at something. How good was Roy at Martell's age? Nothing special. Roy did squat until he was a senior last year. Martell was a 'freshman' last year. Why stunt Martell's growth when, in the long run, Martell has a good chance of also being a good, well-rounded player: decent passer, better rebounder, good defender? And Roy will never shoot like Martell -- or Morrison for that matter.

I doubt Roy is a serious point guard in the NBA. Even if he is, we have Telfair and Jack and Blake for that. Don't need him for that. Don't need him taking Martell's minutes, although he can have all of Dixon's minutes if it's going to go down like that.

Martell can play D. He surprised me last year with his D considering he was fresh out of high school. Martell doesn't have to be as quick as Roy to learn to be effective on defense in the NBA, especially considering his height.

Some have also said Martell can swing to SF. Why, when he has a height advantage at SG, and we could play Gay or Morrison or Bargnani at SF, and keep a great shooter at SG?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Another guy in favor of Roy:
> 
> http://draftexpress.com/myscouting.php?page=view&id=86
> 
> ...


There is no question in my mind that Gay is a better defender than Roy. If part of that is due to his athleticism, that's fine with me, you can't teach athleticism. Roy did even guard the opposing teams best wing player, Bobby Jones would. Roy has good instincts, but will have a difficult time keeping up with the quick SG's, and a very hard time with the majority of PG's. Gay will be playing SF and won't have to deal with too many small, quick, 3's to defend.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Blazer Bert said:


> Some have also said Martell can swing to SF. Why, when he has a height advantage at SG, and we could play Gay or Morrison or Bargnani at SF, and keep a great shooter at SG?


Roy does the things that Webster can't, create off the dribble, finish inside and hit the mid range jumper. Roy also has a great ability to see the floor and find open teammates (Martell) for shots. Roy's man on man defense is good, despite the game against Gonzaga, which is brought up ad-nauseum whenever Roy's defense is mentioned.

Martell puts in 15 min at the back up 2 and 15 min at the 3, therefore not stunting his growth. Roy is a great complement to Webster, and will be in a position to mentor Webster somewhat. 

Quality players and leaders are what the Blazers need, Roy provides both.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Blazer Maven, if Roy ends up as good as you and 'supposedly' Nate thinks, I will remember you and give you your props.

:cheers:


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Tince said:


> There is no question in my mind that Gay is a better defender than Roy. If part of that is due to his athleticism, that's fine with me, you can't teach athleticism. Roy did even guard the opposing teams best wing player, Bobby Jones would. Roy has good instincts, but will have a difficult time keeping up with the quick SG's, and a very hard time with the majority of PG's. Gay will be playing SF and won't have to deal with too many small, quick, 3's to defend.


If Roy, who is quicker than Martell, will have a difficult time keeping up with SG's, are we completely lost at the position? 

If Roy can keep up with and shut down Dee Brown, who is super quick, I think he can keep up the the SG's in the NBA.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Who cares who's the most ready next season, our team won't be ready to compete seriously for at least 3 seasons. We want the best player _then_ not now.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Quality players and leaders are what the Blazers need, Roy provides both.


The Blazers need more than a quality player, we need a superstar player. If we continue to be crappy and only draft quality players, we'll be in the lottery for a while.

Telfair and Webster are quality players, but neither of them are going to be the best player on a playoff team, at least that haven't shown me signs of that. Both would be great #2 and #3 options to a superstar. 

I like Roy, I won't be as upset picking him as some will be, but I don't see him having the superstar potential Morrison and Gay have.


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

How big is Roy? Dont we need bigs? Specially if like Zach and DMILES suck again next year?


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Tince said:


> The Blazers need more than a quality player, we need a superstar player. If we continue to be crappy and only draft quality players, we'll be in the lottery for a while.


Amen, brother.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

blue32 said:


> How big is Roy? Dont we need bigs? Specially if like Zach and DMILES suck again next year?


 6'5" - 6"6" depending on your source....Average for a SG, huge for a PG.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Tince said:


> The Blazers need more than a quality player, we need a superstar player. If we continue to be crappy and only draft quality players, we'll be in the lottery for a while.
> 
> Telfair and Webster are quality players, but neither of them are going to be the best player on a playoff team, at least that haven't shown me signs of that. Both would be great #2 and #3 options to a superstar.
> 
> I like Roy, I won't be as upset picking him as some will be, but I don't see him having the superstar potential Morrison and Gay have.


I think we have been down that road before.

2002: Qyntel Woods (potential superstar) over Tayshaun Prince (solid player)
2003: Travis Outlaw (potential superstar) over Josh Howard (solid player)

There are very few superstars, none obvious in this draft, and Gay has far more holes in his game than does Brandon Roy.

To borrow a baseball analogy, you can't always swing for the fences, sometimes you've just got to take what the pitcher gives you and go for the solid single.

The Blazers, while not scoring, are in the midst of a rally, putting pieces in place and runners on base. They cannot afford to strike out this year.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Blazer Maven said:


> 2002: Qyntel Woods (potential superstar) over Tayshaun Prince (solid player)
> 2003: Travis Outlaw (potential superstar) over Josh Howard (solid player)


I won't argue with the Q over Tay poor choice. However, iirc the Blazers had made a promise to Outlaw before the draft, and at the time Howard was projected to be picked earlier (I seem to remember him falling a lot in the draft for some reason, correct me if I'm wrong). So it's not a sure thing they actually liked Outlaw more then Howard, though it may be true. Tough to say.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> I think we have been down that road before.
> 
> 2002: Qyntel Woods (potential superstar) over Tayshaun Prince (solid player)
> 2003: Travis Outlaw (potential superstar) over Josh Howard (solid player)
> ...


neither one of those two players picked, outlaw or woods, were A: in the lotto (or top 4) and B (more importantly) considered one of the better players in the draft.



> *To borrow a baseball analogy, you can't always swing for the fences, sometimes you've just got to take what the pitcher gives you and go for the solid single.*
> 
> The Blazers, while not scoring, are in the midst of a rally, putting pieces in place and runners on base. They cannot afford to strike out this year.


yah, you do that with a later pick. not #4


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

When u look at adam morrisons workout stats u will know.I am not saying that if u are a king of workouts then u should go number one but adam morrisons stats are crazy good.He will go in the top four and riots would happen if he is there and we skip him at 4.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> I think we have been down that road before.
> 
> 2002: Qyntel Woods (potential superstar) over Tayshaun Prince (solid player)
> 2003: Travis Outlaw (potential superstar) over Josh Howard (solid player)


Two things:

1) You chances of having a potential superstar on the board at #4 is much much greater than at #18. Drafting strategies are much differen't in the mid/late 1st round. 

I could also point out times when we picked JO over the safe Brendon Haywood, and it worked out.


2) Would you please share with me all the "holes" in Gay's game? Roy is a better ballhandler, but I can't think of anything else.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

SMiLE said:


> neither one of those two players picked, outlaw or woods, were A: in the lotto (or top 4) and B (more importantly) considered one of the better players in the draft.
> 
> 
> 
> yah, you do that with a later pick. not #4


 The fact that Hap and I actually argee on something shows how obvious it is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> The fact that Hap and I actually argee on something shows how obvious it is.


it's creepy, aint it?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Brandon Roy 6-5 195 SG Washington Sr.

Adam Morrison 6-8 220 SF Gonzaga Jr.
Rudy Gay 6-8 220 SF UConn So.
Andrea Bargnani 6-11 240 PF Italy 1985
LaMarcus Aldridge 6-11 245 PF Tex. So.
Randy Foye 6-3 205 PG Villanova Sr.

*Martell Webster 6-7 230 SG/SF WA HSSr.
*Jarrett Jack 6-4 198 PG Georgia Tech Jr.

roy is only one inch taller than jack and weighs less than jack 

roy is not needed on this team we need an all-star : aldridge, morrison, bargnani or gay.....roy isnt what we need.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

I say all this talk about Roy is a smokescreen for something else. It just doesn't make sense unless we've lost all confidence in Martell.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Utherhimo said:


> Brandon Roy 6-5 195 SG Washington Sr.
> 
> Adam Morrison 6-8 220 SF Gonzaga Jr.
> Rudy Gay 6-8 220 SF UConn So.
> ...


Bargnani, Gay and Aldridge are not sure all stars. Aldridge has the most upside.

Morrison has all-star scoring, minimal defense: remember Kiki Vandeweghe??


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

graybeard said:


> I say all this talk about Roy is a smokescreen for something else. It just doesn't make sense unless we've lost all confidence in Martell.


I agree that it's probably a smokescreen. I doubt we take Roy with the 4th pick, but I think we may end up with him later in the lotto. And I think he and Webster can co-exist. Martell can get some minutes at the 3. Roy can get some minutes at the 1.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Tince said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1) You chances of having a potential superstar on the board at #4 is much much greater than at #18. Drafting strategies are much differen't in the mid/late 1st round.
> 
> ...


Answer:

It was Zach over Haywood, JO was five years earlier.

Gay's ballhandling is a real problem, it prevents him from attacking from the wing. That's the same problem that plagues Travis.

Gay has a problem with perimeter defense, where he cannot get low and stop a perimeter player. This is another problem with plagues Travis. In the NBA, players who cannot get low will get beaten off the dribble and collect fouls.

Gay also has a motivation/mental deficiency that we have all seen before. He has disappeared from games, especially big games, which is a quality I do not want to see in the #4 pick.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazer Bert said:


> Some have also said Martell can swing to SF. Why, when he has a height advantage at SG, and we could play Gay or Morrison or Bargnani at SF, and keep a great shooter at SG?


I agree.... keep Martell at the 2... plug in Bargnani or Adam at the 3...

shake well....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

That's ok Maven...this will be a moot point once Roy actually shows up to play vs Morrison and Gay....Then we can end this stupid debate about POR taking him at #4....

Morrison and Gay will destroy him...just like they did in college...


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Morrison has all-star scoring, minimal defense: remember Kiki Vandeweghe??


YEP... and we need that kind of scoring ability from the 3...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Utherhimo said:


> Brandon Roy 6-5 195 SG Washington Sr.
> 
> Adam Morrison 6-8 220 SF Gonzaga Jr.
> Rudy Gay 6-8 220 SF UConn So.
> ...


Martell measured 6'6 barefoot at the pre-draft, while JJ measured 6'2.5

we'll see how Roy and the rest of this year's prospects measure up soon.

STOMP


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Gay's ballhandling is a real problem, it prevents him from attacking from the wing. That's the same problem that plagues Travis.


I agreed his ballhandling is a problem, but to say it's on the same level as Outlaw is nuts. Outlaw can only take one dribble, then he must pick it up or else it will be stolen. Gay has shown ability to take mutliple dribbles into the lane, and finish. The article on his workout didn't see him having much trouble dribbling the ball.



> Gay has a problem with perimeter defense, where he cannot get low and stop a perimeter player. This is another problem with plagues Travis. In the NBA, players who cannot get low will get beaten off the dribble and collect fouls.


This is where I think we we must be talking about two different players. What I saw from Rudy is the same thing most mock draft sites saw out him, the guy is a lockdown defender, and a good team defender. Sure maybe he has a hard time defending PG's, but he'll be guarding SF's in the NBA, so that isn't an issue. There are few SF's in this league with blazing speed.

Roy's defense is more suspect than Gay's, mainly because his laterally speed is a half step slow. Roy will be playing that 1 or 2, putting him against much faster players than Gay, exposing his lack of quickiness. 



> Gay also has a motivation/mental deficiency that we have all seen before. He has disappeared from games, especially big games, which is a quality I do not want to see in the #4 pick.


The kid is a sophomore on a loaded college team. Do you remember Brandon Roy stepping up in big games in his sophomore year? No. Roy didn't step up into a leader until this year, his senior year. Who's to say that Gay wouldn't be the leader at UConn two years from now? The fact that Gay is already on the same level as Roy despite a lack of experience says a lot to me.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Tince said:


> The kid is a sophomore on a loaded college team. Do you remember Brandon Roy stepping up in big games in his sophomore year? No. Roy didn't step up into a leader until this year, his senior year. Who's to say that Gay wouldn't be the leader at UConn two years from now? The fact that Gay is already on the same level as Roy despite a lack of experience says a lot to me.


Roy improvement by leaps and bounds shows his dedication and mental toughness, which Gay may have, but has not proven. That element is very important for this Blazer squad. We have seen what a lack of mental toughness has led to and with Gay at #4 we may well have more of the same.

Let's change that element and draft a guy who has proven himself.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy improvement by leaps and bounds shows his dedication and mental toughness, which Gay may have, but has not proven. That element is very important for this Blazer squad. We have seen what a lack of mental toughness has led to and with Gay at #4 we may well have more of the same.
> 
> Let's change that element and draft a guy who has proven himself.


 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree....

The only thing Roy has proven is he was real good his senior season in college.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

I don't hate Roy at all. In fact, I think he'll be a very solid NBA player, and a very valuable piece of a good/great team. I just don't think he has a lot of star upside and I think he'd be a reach at #4.

I'd love to get Roy at around #6 or #7. Any lower than that and I think Roy becomes a steal. I'd be happy to deal Randolph and our later picks to get another pick around #6 and grab Roy. Roy + Gay/Aldridge/Bargnani/Morrison would be tremendous.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Let's change that element and draft a guy who has proven himself.


Oh spare us the "He has proven himself b.s."

Roy hasn't proven diddley squat. He is supposedly the "great defender" a "lockdown" type of player...yet he didn't even guard opposing teams' best players...no, that duty fell to Bobby Jones.....The guy picked up a lot of stupid fouls as well...he fouled out of what 5-6? games...and was constantly in foul trouble for most of the year....

and whne he did go up against the Morrrison and Gay's of the world (those two sepcifically) he got TORCHED...

Here is a word that sums up his defense....OVERATED.

If that is his supposed "strongsuit" over Morrison\Gay then I am not impressed...and he is not even CLOSE to having the offensive versatility of Gay\Morrison....

He is a dumb pick for POR...who already has a SG that they took at #6 LAST year, and whose coach has REPEATEDLY stated he sees as a SG...not a SF...a SG...

and with the NBA devising rules to help offense...and the importance of having perimeter players...having a guy at SHOOTING GUARD whose offensive game is mainly predicated on slashing to the hoop is ridiculous....

He won't be rookie of the year...he will be lucky if makes an All-Star game...and as I stated earlier in this thread...he is going to get his *** handed to him if ever gets the ball$ to go 1v1 vs Morrison or Gay...whom he allegedly keeps ducking....along with ducking Carney and Marquinhos...

3/4 of whom are very good athletic players...the other an offensive savant.....I see a pattern there...your problem is you cannot....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I don't hate Roy at all. In fact, I think he'll be a very solid NBA player, and a very valuable piece of a good/great team. I just don't think he has a lot of star upside and I think he'd be a reach at #4.
> 
> I'd love to get Roy at around #6 or #7. Any lower than that and I think Roy becomes a steal. I'd be happy to deal Randolph and our later picks to get another pick around #6 and grab Roy. Roy + Gay/Aldridge/Bargnani/Morrison would be tremendous.


Exactly. No one hates Roy. They/I just hate him at #4


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Fork said:


> I agree that it's probably a smokescreen. I doubt we take Roy with the 4th pick, but I think we may end up with him later in the lotto. And I think he and Webster can co-exist. Martell can get some minutes at the 3. Roy can get some minutes at the 1.


If we trade for another lottery pick and draft Roy at no. 6 or later (after my top 5 are already gone), where he belongs, I will do this :clap: .


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Oh spare us the "He has proven himself b.s."
> 
> Roy...didn't even guard opposing teams' best players...
> 
> when he did go up against the Morrrison and Gay's of the world (those two sepcifically) he got TORCHED...


Which is it? Did he not guard the best players or did he get torched by the best players?

And why would he have guarded Morrison or Gay anyway? He's a shooting guard. They're small forwards. Bobby Jones is a small forward, that's why he guarded them.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I don't hate Roy at all. In fact, I think he'll be a very solid NBA player, and a very valuable piece of a good/great team. I just don't think he has a lot of star upside and I think he'd be a reach at #4.
> 
> I'd love to get Roy at around #6 or #7. Any lower than that and I think Roy becomes a steal. I'd be happy to deal Randolph and our later picks to get another pick around #6 and grab Roy. Roy + Gay/Aldridge/Bargnani/Morrison would be tremendous.


:clap: totally agree

If I could get 2x players in the top 6 by dealing Randolph I would do it...

I had also wanted to get JJ Reddick as well.. maybe in a #9-15 range... maybe by dealing Miles... and if that ended up being Roy.. I think it would be good too


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Which is it? Did he not guard the best players or did he get torched by the best players?


On the occassions when he did get to guard Gay and Morrison they lit him up...I think he picked up 3 of his fouls vs Morrison in the game vs Gonzaga and I distinctly remember a 5+ min stretch vs UCONNwhere he went head to haed (offensively and defensively) against Gay and got his shot rejected and owned on defense by Gay...



> And why would he have guarded Morrison or Gay anyway? He's a shooting guard. They're small forwards. Bobby Jones is a small forward, that's why he guarded them.


good point...let's move our young SG @ 6'7 to SF and then play 6'5 Roy at SG so we can be undersized at SF as well...

Frankly I'd rather have a 6'7 SG and a 6'9 SF...both of whom are threats to score when they have the ball.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> On the occassions when he did get to guard Gay and Morrison they lit him up...I think he picked up 3 of his fouls vs Morrison in the game vs Gonzaga and I distinctly remember a 5+ min stretch vs UCONNwhere he went head to haed (offensively and defensively) against Gay and got his shot rejected and owned on defense by Gay...
> 
> good point...let's move our young SG @ 6'7 to SF and then play 6'5 Roy at SG so we can be undersized at SF as well...
> 
> Frankly I'd rather have a 6'7 SG and a 6'9 SF...both of whom are threats to score when they have the ball.


Talking height while you are a Telfair supporter is a bit troublesome. Telfair is a threat at the point because of all the other qualities he brings.

Height is not everything, if it were, then we should just play Miles/Webster/Outlaw/Joel and Ha and be done with it.

Gay scored 10 pts against UW and was not a factor, Roy owned the floor against Gay, but Gay "torched him"...Please. 

Roy had several drives through Gay's (I can't stay in front of you) defense and got to the line or converted on many trips down the floor. Roy is a threat to score (20 ppg) and can get the ball to his teammates better than either Gay or Morrison.

Roy is mentally tougher than Gay, which will show in the quality of their NBA careers. I just hope Roy's is with Portland.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Talking height while you are a Telfair supporter is a bit troublesome. Telfair is a threat at the point because of all the other qualities he brings.


So Roy has incredible quickness then? And great court vision? and that he is going to play PG in the NBA? (tell me you don't belieive that nonsense)



> Gay scored 10 pts against UW and was not a factor, Roy owned the floor against Gay, but Gay "torched him"...Please.


You must not have seen the game then...they didn't guard each other for the majority of that game...but when they did go head to head....it wasn't even close.....and it won't be if Roy decides to show up and compete vs Gay either....



> Roy is mentally tougher than Gay, which will show in the quality of their NBA careers. I just hope Roy's is with Portland.


Haha..Is that his vaunted mental toughness he is displaying by dodging workouts vs Rodney Carney and Adam Morrison then? At least Rudy Gay isn't afraid to go head to head against anyone....

Your boy couldn't even stand out in a workout vs future NBA HOF'rs Arron Afflao and Marcel Almond....and allegedly got lit up by Marquinhos...

He sure looked mentally tough sitting there on the bench with 4 or 5 fouls in 1/3rd of UW games alright....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Roy scored 20 points for Washington. The Pac-10 player of the year missed vital time in the second half after he and Gay went chest-to-chest and received double technicals. Roy also got a personal foul on the play, giving him four fouls and forcing him to the bench for several minutes.
> 
> "Overall, there was a period where we lost our composure as a group," Romar said. "That was a stretch where the momentum kind of shifted. It wasn't just Brandon's technical. We started to get a little rattled as a group."


Roy was having a nice game until he lost his composure...but hey...he is "mentally" tough...

14:29 Foul on Brandon Roy 
13:55 Foul on Brandon Roy 
13:39 Foul on Brandon Roy 

nice series there


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> Roy was having a nice game until he lost his composure...but hey...he is "mentally" tough...
> 
> 14:29 Foul on Brandon Roy
> 13:55 Foul on Brandon Roy
> ...


There was absolutely no reason for that T, there was no contact, only talk, and Gay backing down. The refs clearly missed the Gay elbow to the gut before the Gay ran the curl that Roy got called for the foul on.

Roy owned the game until that point, Gay was a non-factor, although Gay "torched" Roy.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

nice interview with Gay....

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1325

I like his comments about working out against other players.....



> Roy owned the game until that point, Gay was a non-factor, although Gay "torched" Roy.


Well Like I said, Roy had one of his best games that I have seen from him....and Gay\Roy weren't matched up against each other for a majority of the night...but right after that technical...they did go head to haed for a little bit, and I thought it was pretty apparent which player was better...


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Kmurph said:


> So Roy has incredible quickness then? And great court vision? and that he is going to play PG in the NBA? (tell me you don't belieive that nonsense
> 
> You must not have seen the game then...they didn't guard each other for the majority of that game...but when they did go head to head....it wasn't even close.....and it won't be if Roy decides to show up and compete vs Gay either....
> 
> ...


No, Roy will not play PG. He has the ability to run an offense from the SG position, which Gay clearly does not. He makes his teammates, better. Gay of course, didn't need to, but also didn't rack up the assists for someone who is compared to Scottie Pippen.

Roy is a team leader, Gay is not.

Don't believe every rumor you hear on the web, a little jet lag is not enough to destroy a player's credibility. 

Roy and Rudy will go head to head at some point, and Roy will hold his own.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Roy is a team leader, Gay is not.


Come on Maven....Roy was a Senior...Gay was a sophmore on an senior laden team....and yet, on a team with 4 likely 1st round picks and 6 players likely drafted overall...Gay lead the team in scoring...and was 3rd in rebounding behind Centers Armstrong and Boone....



> Roy and Rudy will go head to head at some point, and Roy will hold his own.


So you hope....I guess we will see how he does against Morrison and Gay....


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i agree with you guys he is a good role player now and is nba ready now like i said

and i do want a potential guy....such as thomas or gay...believe me i love those guys

but my thing is IF we do draft roy...would everyone be mad and have a hissy fit...

im supporting blazers till the end....so really whoever they take imma support...i may not like them but il support them...

for instance we have miles
i dont like him but its not like i wish him to play bad because that jsut hurts us
i dont like him but wish he plays good

so if we get roy
im not gonna hate on him and im just gonna support him and the blazers

thats why im a fan...to support my team not to get mad at what they do

last year i felt we should have chosen a nba reayd guy
and the year before too

we cant always draft on potential...its to much gambling for me
id rather take a safe pick...what u see is what u get


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

but dont get me wrong id loooooove to have gay or thomas cuz these guys are awesome

ive just been thinking lately maybe roy isnt that bad of a pick


----------



## dwood615 (Jul 20, 2004)

i would even want morrison if he plays well in workouts...i mean his D isnt truly the worst and he can get better

i mean with this draft i would be happy with alot more players then roy but i wouldnt be really sad if we got roy


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If we draft Roy it will take me a week to get over it, and I'm sure it won't take long for him to become one of my favorite Blazers. The only two people in the top 6 I'd be real upset about is Thomas and Bargnani, anyone else I'm sure I'll love in a short time.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

In the coming draft there are some things we can be certain of.... The blazers are not going to tip their hand on who they are really high on in this draft. It would be stupid of them to do so. If other GM's knew they could and would use it against us.
I'm certain that all blazer employee insiders have been instructed by Patterson to keep their mouths shut about insider information. Loose lips sink ships.
Mike Rice has said he likes Roy, Nate says he likes Roy, Barrett is picking Roy as our pick. Several of the Draft websites have us taking Roy, no doubt because of what they're hearing from blazer "leaks". Does anyone else think it's odd that they all agree about Roy when nobody else can agree on anything in this draft?
Hell, they haven't even seen the top prospects work out yet.

So what can we deduce from all of this?..... We aint really gonna take Roy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that Roy will be a slight reach at #4, but not by much. Any of the top 6 guys (Aldridge, Bargnani, Gay, Morrison, Roy, Thomas) are guys that I'd like to be Blazers... Roy and Morrison are less exciting to me than the others, but excitement is less important to me than having a good team to root for.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

graybeard said:


> So what can we deduce from all of this?..... We aint really gonna take Roy.


I dunno. The Blazers reportedly had a promise with Outlaw. Then took Outlaw.

The Blazers were talking up Telfair. Then took Telfair.

The Blazers were talking up Webster. Then took Webster.

It's _possible_ that they'll have a change of heart this year, but I'm not sure that they'd suddenly do a 180 and say the exact opposite of what they're thinking.

Ed O.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Blazer Maven said:


> Bargnani, Gay and Aldridge are not sure all stars. Aldridge has the most upside.
> 
> Morrison has all-star scoring, minimal defense: remember Kiki Vandeweghe??


So, we should pass on the next Kiki, in favor of the next Fred Hoiberg?

As for your baseball analogy - if this team keeps laying down sacrifice bunts (EG passing on Paul, passing on Aldridge/Gay/Morrison) there may not be a PORTLAND Trailblazers to worry about. 

The blunt truth is, I would draft Reddick before Roy. At least he has ONE exceptional skill.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I dunno. The Blazers reportedly had a promise with Outlaw. Then took Outlaw.
> 
> The Blazers were talking up Telfair. Then took Telfair.
> 
> ...


John Nash is gone. He was the one making most of the comments about Telfair and Webster. Then again, there was exactly zero talk about Khryapa, Monia and Jack. I think it's kind of hard to say whether they'll do what they indicate they're going to do.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> John Nash is gone. He was the one making most of the comments about Telfair and Webster. Then again, there was exactly zero talk about Khryapa, Monia and Jack. I think it's kind of hard to say whether they'll do what they indicate they're going to do.


Of course it's hard to say, but I follow the NBA pretty closely and I can't remember three straight years where the first pick of a team was so predictable. And I don't mean "predictable" like "same-old, same-old". I mean like "they were kissing the guy's butt in the days and weeks leading up the draft". Which is how the past couple have gone, and how (at this point) it seems to be going with Roy.

Ed O.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

wild rice thinks you dont take roy at 4


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Of course it's hard to say, but I follow the NBA pretty closely and I can't remember three straight years where the first pick of a team was so predictable. And I don't mean "predictable" like "same-old, same-old". I mean like "they were kissing the guy's butt in the days and weeks leading up the draft". Which is how the past couple have gone, and how (at this point) it seems to be going with Roy.
> 
> Ed O.


All those other players you mentioned came out right before the draft like a couple days....not 3 weeks.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> All those other players you mentioned came out right before the draft like a couple days....not 3 weeks.


Sorry, but with Telfair, at least, that's simply not true.

http://www.nba.com/blog/archive_2003/blog23.html

From John Nash, 15 days before the draft:



> *Sebastian Telfair:* I've heard a lot of speculation about the Trail Blazers and Telfair. He is a good shooter and he had a good workout his with us. He does have a disadvantage with being only 5-11, but he is an amazing passer and scores well. We are looking at him and along with about 10 other players, we would consider taking him with our 13th pick.


That was the only player mentioned by name in the four questions they listed. That Nash calls Telfair a "good shooter" is kinda crazy, too 

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Of course it's hard to say, but I follow the NBA pretty closely and I can't remember three straight years where the first pick of a team was so predictable. And I don't mean "predictable" like "same-old, same-old". I mean like "they were kissing the guy's butt in the days and weeks leading up the draft". Which is how the past couple have gone, and how (at this point) it seems to be going with Roy.
> 
> Ed O.


Absolutely. But again, that was John Nash doing the talking during the last 2 drafts. Maybe things have changed now that Patterson is 'in charge.' Then again, maybe not. I expect that Roy is the guy too, unless Morrison shuts him down defensively when they work out together.

And I'm starting to warm up to the idea of Brandon Roy. All these same people who are crying that 'we already have a SG' don't seem to remember that we passed on Chris Paul last year because 'we already have a PG.' (And because he wouldn't work out for us, which is interesting, because Brandon Roy has no problem working out for us despite the fact that we have Martell. Maybe he feels he can get minutes no matter who is on our team? And if he's right, how is that a bad thing?)


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

BUMP

This thread is pretty funny looking back over the last few months.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> neither one of those two players picked, outlaw or woods, were A: in the lotto (or top 4) and B (more importantly) considered one of the better players in the draft.
> 
> 
> 
> yah, you do that with a later pick. not #4



hey, once again I was purposely vague enough to not stick my foot too far down my throat. Although I'm sure that I did make stupid comments regarding Roy being picked by the Blazers elsewhere.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I wonder who that OTHER mediocre man is....He obviously had no idea what he was talking about. At least he said not to pick him at 4. Never said anything....in this thread anyway about not picking in period.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> So, we should pass on the next Kiki, in favor of the next Fred Hoiberg?
> 
> As for your baseball analogy - if this team keeps laying down sacrifice bunts (EG passing on Paul, passing on Aldridge/Gay/Morrison) there may not be a PORTLAND Trailblazers to worry about.
> 
> The blunt truth is, I would draft Reddick before Roy. At least he has ONE exceptional skill.



:redface: 

OK, I will fess up - I got it half right and half wrong.

The middle part of my rant turned out to be prophetic. The team grew a pair on draft day and made some moves. It will take time to see if the ball leaves the park, but it was certainly no timid bunt.


As for the rest of it..........methinks I underestimated Roy. Unless what we have seen so far is a fluke, he will be an impact player. 

Mind you, it is waaaay to early to claim he is going to be *better* than Adam - but the Hoiberg analogy was off base.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Oldmangrouch said:


> :redface:
> 
> OK, I will fess up - I got it half right and half wrong.
> 
> ...


No mention of the Reddick/Roy comment? Haha, just kidding man. The draft has so many question marks. I'm glad this got bumped. Some funny stuff in here for sure.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

what we all or most of us looked past was Roy's all-around skills. He wasn't GREAT at one thing, but at least to me, I didn't realize the skill set he has in all aspects of the game.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Although I didn't post in this thread, I did want Morrison over Roy... Thank God I'm not the GM.


----------

