# Jaynes Nails It..............



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=35822


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Except:



> At the NBA pre-draft camp, they weigh and measure all draft candidates. Morrison’s height without shoes was 6-6 1/2, which is very short for a small forward. Now I realize they don’t play games barefoot, but Morrison is not very athletic to begin with, and to find out he’s undersized, too, is a bit alarming.


Since when is 6'7"+ in shoes very short for a small forward? I agree it's not AK-47 or KG, but it's not like he's as short as Carney.

I agree about the concern about rebounding though. This team needs help in rebounding and I don't think any team can afford to have any of the front three positions not be able to rebound.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Very good take. I agree with all of it. He lists all of my concerns that I've never bothered to itemize. But I'll go ahead and criticize one thing: the reference to his height. The guy looks like he has no neck (I'm referring to Morrison, not Jaynes). It's his reach that matters more than how high the top of his head is from the floor.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Blazer Bert said:


> But I'll go ahead and criticize one thing: the reference to his height. The guy looks like he has no neck (I'm referring to Morrison, not Jaynes).


Oh, that applies to Jaynes, too...

...but for a very different reason.



PBF


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I wouldnt be surprised to see Morrison's rebounding improve in the NBA. Rebounding his more about desire and hard work than anything else (ask D.Rodman). I'm sure Morrison is reading all about his weak rebounding and will make a point to work hard at it. And in the NBA, he wont need to be a one man offensive show as he was in college, so he can devote more energy into rebounding.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Reep said:


> Since when is 6'7"+ in shoes very short for a small forward? I agree it's not AK-47 or KG, but it's not like he's as short as Carney.


I'd consider it on the short-end of average. I tend to think of a SF as somewhere in th 6'7-6'9 range. I probably wouldn't label him undersized, but he definitely doesn't have an advantage there.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

If Morrison were 2 inches taller, it'd be great. But that's true of almost every player.

I'm not concerned about his height. 6'7.5" in shoes IS a bit on the small side, but it shouldn't be too bad... it won't be the reason he gets lit up on the defensive end. Actually, I have very low expectations for AM at every part of the NBA game except scoring the basketball... his rebounding and defense would be better if he were bigger, but... *shrug*

His reach is actually pretty decent. He's at 8'9", which is almost 3 inches shorter than Gay and a full 3 inches shorter than Thomas, but is higher than, for example, Shelden Williams.

Ed O.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

The only thing Jaynes ever nails is the buffet line...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> Except:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our starting SF last season was 6'9". i don't have time to list all of the SF height's in the league, but I would almost bet that the average is taller than 6'7"


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

yawn....

When are people like Jaynes going to understand that being a good\excellent basketball player has a lot more to do with intangibles than their height and other "measureables"?

You know what I find funny? The fact that POR HAS a player who meets the "measureables" meter and his name is Travis Outlaw...except he can't get off the bench b\c he has absolutlely ZERO feel for the game....

But boy he can jump, has a great winsgpan, great standing reach, can run like a deer and has great height for a SF.....

Why is he 3rd string again?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> yawn....
> 
> When are people like Jaynes going to understand that being a good\excellent basketball player has a lot more to do with intangibles than their height and other "measureables"?
> 
> ...



Great post Kmurph. The players need to know what the hell they are doing once they get onto the floor. There are too many Yinka Dare's or Darius Miles' in the league that have all the tools, but are either too lazy or too stupid or both. Morrison would be a great pick because of his intangables. Now if Bargnani, Gay or Aldridge have the same type of drive and intangables then draft them because of their height.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I doubt Portlanders come flocking in to see Morrison because of his "passion for the game." it's not like we haven't had passionate players in the past--Ruben Patterson and Zach Randolph are exactly the same kind of passionate players as Morrison (a passion, incidentally, that only seems to surface on offense or defense but rarely both ends). even Stoudamire, with all his many failings, did try hard most of the time. (you HAVE to be a hard worker if you are an NBA player who is both short and stupid.) 

Telfair, Webster, Jack and Khryapa all play with a high degree of energy (at least when their spirit isn't broken by endless losing and/or benching). the knock on Randolph is stupidity, not general lack of effort. basically, the only real slacker on our squad is Miles, and NOBODY sees him as a long-term feature of our team. 

so draft the best player available and ignore the "passion for the game" nonsense. the passion is alreadythere in our youngsters. what they need right now is hope--hope that they can actually win a few games. you draft the guy you think has the best shot of being a star, and that will fuel the hope.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Did Jaynes just read the complaints of Larry Bird when he came into the league??? (yeah I know.. get off the Larry comparisons) 

Ammo is not an exceptional athlete... no one has ever said that.. or that his physical presense is dominating. But he is comeptitive and smart.. something this team has lacked for a long time. I want someone who has that competitive fire inside their heart on this team. It can be infectious to the others. A Jorden or Magic type of fire.... very hard driven. It goes beyond passion. Its a will to win.

Larry Bird had slow feet... but played good team D.... maybe Adam can as well. He is smart...

The Larry Bird comparisons have some merit to them.. but I have my doubts he will ever be close to a Larry Legend type of player. Maybe not even close to it. But he has some qualities that are good. Do not discount them... if he helps the team and he is available.. maybe even the best player available.. you take him... even if you end up trading him later on.

At #4 we are probably going to get a good player for years to come.. just probably not an all star. This years draft seems to be void of those.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> yawn....
> 
> When are people like Jaynes going to understand that being a good\excellent basketball player has a lot more to do with intangibles than their height and other "measureables"?
> 
> ...


Good point. Imagine Adam Morrison's brain and heart inside of Travis Outlaw's body. Now that would be a great player!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Intangibles only get you so far. You can be a 4' 1" midget with the greatest heart in the game and you'd get stuffed everytime down the court. Do they account for part of the game? Yes. But they aren't the end all - be all.

As to Outlaw, how many times must this be said? Outlaw is on the bench because he doesn't have another measurable skill - intelligence. The kid is the nicest kid in the world but his basketball IQ is a little low. Intelligence is NOT an intangible.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Let me put it this way...

Whose opinion would YOU rather trust...

Dwight Jaynes?

or Steve "Snapper" Jones?

as per courtside last night...



> Steve Jones
> - (Spent most of the time talking about the finals)
> - Jones still favors Dallas to win it, but thinks this is the first time he has seen the Mavericks head coach losing it.
> - If Jones had a choice between Aldridge and Morrison, he would pick Morrison without hesitation.
> ...


http://www.hoopsworld.com/board3/showthread.php?tid=8997


Jones couldn't be MORE right on the money......


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> Let me put it this way...
> 
> Whose opinion would YOU rather trust...
> 
> ...



I'd trust Jones more, but that doesn't mean he is right (or wrong).

Saying Adam is going to be the same sort of offensive threat Drexler was is laughable. And the reason we've needed and have shot blockers that are so valued is because we can't get anyone else to play defense (or very few others)....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Steve Jones likes a player that is all offense and plays no defense?

Shocker!

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Who is this Nate Johnson cat they were talking about the Blazers also picking?
I'd like to see Leon Powe but that's just because he's a Cal Bear.
Go Bears!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

crandc said:


> Who is this Nate Johnson cat they were talking about the Blazers also picking?
> I'd like to see Leon Powe but that's just because he's a Cal Bear.
> Go Bears!


Did they mean Alexander Johnson? If it was Mike Rice that said it, he probably just butchered the name.

I just checked out Alexander Johnson's rebounding numbers per 40 minutes. He's just about as good as anyone that isn't named Tyrus Thomas.

Rebounds per 40.

Johnson: 11.7
Thomas: 14.3
Aldridge: 10.9
Sheldon Williams: 12.5
Powe: 11.4


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

crandc said:


> Who is this Nate Johnson cat they were talking about the Blazers also picking?
> I'd like to see Leon Powe but that's just because he's a Cal Bear.
> Go Bears!


 Yes, but are the Bears really local to you? And if so does that mean the Cardinals are "local" to the Bears? And if a bear ****s in the woods, does a cardinal hear it? :biggrin:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Trader Bob said:


> Did Jaynes just read the complaints of Larry Bird when he came into the league??? (yeah I know.. get off the Larry comparisons)
> 
> Ammo is not an exceptional athlete... no one has ever said that.. or that his physical presense is dominating. But he is comeptitive and smart.. something this team has lacked for a long time. I want someone who has that competitive fire inside their heart on this team. It can be infectious to the others. A Jorden or Magic type of fire.... very hard driven. It goes beyond passion. Its a will to win.
> 
> ...


Larry was 3 inches taller and could pass like John Stockton. When was the last time you heard of Morrison being praised for his passing?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Yes, but are the Bears really local to you? And if so does that mean the Cardinals are "local" to the Bears? And if a bear ****s in the woods, does a cardinal hear it? :biggrin:


The Cardinal...not Cardinals...The Cardinal


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

My brother went there when they were the Indians.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> My brother went there when they were the Indians.


 The Indian. . . not Indians . . The Indian :biggrin:


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Cal is "local" to me because I live in the East Bay. Stanford is more penninsula. And I went to Cal, which nails it.
If a Bear has a bowel movement in the woods, damn right a Cardinal hears it!
Actually I think I was the one who goofed on the name, which is what happens when I read an article while doing 2 other things, then try to comment on it 30 minutes :banghead: later.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> The Indian. . . not Indians . . The Indian :biggrin:


I suppose


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Fork said:


> I just checked out Alexander Johnson's rebounding numbers per 40 minutes. He's just about as good as anyone that isn't named Tyrus Thomas.
> 
> Rebounds per 40.
> 
> ...


Or anyone named Paul Millsap:

Rebounds per 40.

Millsap: 15.6

Johnson is taller and appears to have a more developed offensive game, but when it comes to rebonding, be it per minute, per game, per season or per career, nobody in this draft compares to Paul Millsap. Johnson's stock seems to be rising and Millsap is treading water and basically getting ignored. The Blazers may have to trade up to get Johnson, but there is a pretty good chance they can get Millsap at 30/31. They definitely need a back-up 4 and I'd take either of these guys over someone like Kevin Pittsnogle (whose stock has REALLY dropped - deservedly so, IMHO as he's an awful rebounder: 6.1 reb/40min).

BNM


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Why are people saying that Adam isn't a good rebounder?...

He averaged 5.5 rebounds in college. Thats average for a SF in college.

Rudy Gay averaged 6.4 rpg, if you consider not even a rebound more a game a better rebounder than I don't know what to say.

I think that he's not a good rebounder, was something that was mentioned on here by someone who didn't know what they were talking about and it just stuck.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Intangibles only get you so far. *You can be a 4' 1" midget with the greatest heart in the game and you'd get stuffed everytime down the court.* Do they account for part of the game? Yes. But they aren't the end all - be all.
> 
> As to Outlaw, how many times must this be said? Outlaw is on the bench because he doesn't have another measurable skill - intelligence. The kid is the nicest kid in the world but his basketball IQ is a little low. Intelligence is NOT an intangible.


and you can be a 4'1" midget with the greatest athletic ability in the world and be dumb as an ox and still look like a fool on the court.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

I love Dwights' column's. He nails a lot of things spot on. He is also VERY stubborn. He has fixed himself on his position with Morrison for a few months. We have had a couple of humorous exchanges about his position being completely wrong and mine being right. 

If we draft Morrison and he averages 18-19 ppg as a rookie..then maybe, just maybe DJ will turn.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

> Yes, I know he’s very smart and supercompetitive. So are you. But you can’t play in the NBA.


What a great quote about Morrison, hillarious.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I think that he's not a good rebounder, was something that was mentioned on here by someone who didn't know what they were talking about and it just stuck.



It was Morrison himself who mentioned it . . . but he explained it was because he was asked to score 50 points a game. :biggrin: 

(Joke)


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> Why are people saying that Adam isn't a good rebounder?...
> 
> He averaged 5.5 rebounds in college. Thats average for a SF in college.
> 
> ...


Compared to the other players being considered by the Blazers at 4, rebounding is not one of Morrison's strengths. In fact, he's the worst rebounder likely to be drafted in the top 6, and other than PG Marcus Williams is the weakest rebounder of players projected to go in the top 10 picks - including a couple of guards, Brandon Roy and Randy Foye.

Reb/40min

Rudy Gay: 8.3
Brandon Roy: 7.11
Randy Foye: 6.6
Adam Morrison: 6.0

Given the minutes Morrison played, criticism of his rebounding is justified, IMHO. I'm not saying he's an awful rebounder, but his rebounding in college is a bit on the weak side. This is another area where the (unfair) Bird comparisons fail. Bird was a great rebounder, both in college (14.9 rpg as a senior) and the NBA.

BNM


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Compared to the other players being considered by the Blazers at 4, rebounding is not one of Morrison's strengths. In fact, he's the worst rebounder likely to be drafted in the top 6, and other than PG Marcus Williams is the weakest rebounder of players projected to go in the top 10 picks - including a couple of guards, Brandon Roy and Randy Foye.
> 
> Reb/40min
> 
> ...


Good point. 

But I think that per 40 minute guesstimations are the lousiest statistic there is.....There is know telling what a player will or won't do during that time so why should we even try and guess. On court performance in the given time they're on the court is much more telling to me.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> Good point.
> 
> But I think that per 40 minute guesstimations are the lousiest statistic there is.....There is know telling what a player will or won't do during that time so why should we even try and guess. On court performance in the given time their on the court is much more telling to me.


Point being that Morrison played more minutes than all the other players mentioned. Therefore, he had more opportunities for rebounds and if rebounding was a strength, he would have averaged more than 5.5 rpg. Even if you ignore the per minute stats, Morrison still averaged fewer rebounds per game than Gay and Roy - who played shooting guard in college and is projected as a 2/1 in the NBA. In terms of rebounding, Morrison is barely adaquate. Of course, anyone who drafts him is drafting him to be a scorer, not lead the league in rebounding - they know what they are getting.

I know times have changed and the Bird comparisons are unfair, but just to give you an idea of the kind of college player Larry Bird was (I grew up in Indiana and remember Larry's college days well - I almost went to Indiana State).

For his three year college career:

Larry Bird:
30.3 ppg
13.3 rpg
4.6 apg
53.3 FG%

Adam Morrison:
19.8 ppg
5.1 rpg
2.0 apg
50.3 FG%

I like Morrison, but comparing his overall game to Bird is a joke. During his junior year, he showed he can score and shoot like Bird, but other than being white and considered unathletic, that's where the comparisons end. I would still be happy if the Blazers drafted him, I just have less than Larry Legend expectations for him.

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Good point.
> 
> But I think that per 40 minute guesstimations are the lousiest statistic there is.....There is know telling what a player will or won't do during that time so why should we even try and guess. On court performance in the given time they're on the court is much more telling to me.



Not to be pedantic, but.....

Rebounds per 40 minutes aren't a guesstimate of what the player *would* do if he played 40 minutes of every game. They reflect what he did for every 40 minutes he *actually played*. It isn't perfect, but it is more meaningful than rebounds per game - which is skewed by playing time.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

From DraftExpress.Com


Draft outlook: Adam Morrison would be a good fit if the Blazers decided to draft a small forward. Morrison could develop into an elite scorer in the NBA, and *Nate McMillan would be the perfect coach to help him* in the areas of his game that are seen as lacking at this point. *He’s a Northwest native who would bring the type of passion and winning attitude that both the team and its fans are missing right now*.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

intersting find oil can


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> From DraftExpress.Com
> 
> 
> Draft outlook: Adam Morrison would be a good fit if the Blazers decided to draft a small forward. Morrison could develop into an elite scorer in the NBA, and *Nate McMillan would be the perfect coach to help him* in the areas of his game that are seen as lacking at this point. *He’s a Northwest native who would bring the type of passion and winning attitude that both the team and its fans are missing right now*.




Great quote if for no other reason that it didn't say he was local. YES!!!!!he is a NW native and that would be great to have in Portland if he is the best player available when the Blazers pick. I also like the idea of taking a player that excels at offense along with a big heart, and letting a defensive minded coach help him with the other areas of his game instead of drafting a defensive player and have no one to help him score.


My ever changing draft board goes like this 


1a. Aldridge
1b. Bargnani
1c. Morrison
2. Gay
3. Thomas
4. Roy

According to most mocks we should be able to get one of Aldridge, Morrison or Bargnani since Thomas supposedly has a guarantee from someone ahead of us.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

To me, the local stuff means very little...

Damon was a local boy and the majority of fans wanted him out. Production comes way before geography.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

I just want to remind folks that rebounding is a *team exercise*, and it's hard to evaluate a single player who is not a center or power forward. In the case of Gonzaga, they were a very good rebounding team, and were only outrebounded 8 times in 35 games. And several of those occurred in games that Gonzaga won by blowout (and thus aren't really statistically significant). 

Also, we shouldn't forget that JP Baptiste was the primary rebounding force for the Zags - the guy posted frequent double-double's or near-double-double's. 

I don't know how I feel about Adam Morrison (and I love the nickname "Ammo" considering the way the guy loves to shoot), but if I turn against him, it will have nothing to do with rebounding.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Good point.
> 
> But I think that per 40 minute guesstimations are the lousiest statistic there is.....There is know telling what a player will or won't do during that time so why should we even try and guess. On court performance in the given time they're on the court is much more telling to me.


Of course you think per 40 is a lousy stat...it doesn't support your preconceived notions about A_am Morrison. 

Fact is, he's not much of a rebounder. 

And on court performance doesn't change that. He couldn't rebound very well in the time he was on the court.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Tince said:


> Damon was a local boy and the majority of fans wanted him out. Production comes way before geography.


True, most of the hardcore fans (IE people who post here) wanted him out. But he almost always, except for right after a pot bust, got the loudest cheers during pregame introductions. I think that little ******* was pretty well loved by the more casual fans.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

What a waste of time and energy. You could write an article like this for every single player in the draft. Especially this one. Is there anything in this article that we didn't already know?

And Jaynes doesn't give any better option that Morrison. I wonder why. Probably because at #4 in this draft there won't be.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Of course you think per 40 is a lousy stat...it doesn't support your preconceived notions about A_am Morrison.
> 
> Fact is, he's not much of a rebounder.
> 
> And on court performance doesn't change that. He couldn't rebound very well in the time he was on the court.


He's average for a SF...

Thats what I've been saying the whole time, I never suggested that he was a good one, but to rip on him about rebounding isn't necessary because he's pretty average for other players at his position in that category.

And don't we all discredit things that go against our argument, thats a pretty common things around here I'm not sure its necessary to bring up that I do it, I've seen you and others do it numerous times.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's average for a SF...


... in college.

Which means that he'll be a sub-par rebounder in the NBA.

Ed O.


----------

