# Jarrett Jack



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

I'm scratching my head wondering why Jack is starting for us. I know this is a tired subject. I'm not saying Sergio should be the starter. I just do not think JJ is ready to start in the NBA. Not even close. My reasoning? 

First and foremost, his confidence. He has none. Ever since the first time I saw him in training camp his rookie season, he has been devoid of the most important factor for a point guard. The point man is supposed to be the floor general. Jack does not command any respect out there. He is afraid to step up and take control of the team. That's a very bad trait for a point guard. 

Second, he really brings nothing to the table other than size. I would say his playmaking abilities are below average. He's not a very good passer. That right there makes him an inferior point guard to Sergio. This would be forgivable if he could score, but aside from a couple of outstanding games this season, he's been very quiet on the offensive end. I don't expect much scoring from the point guard spot, but SOME would be nice.

I spent most of the Seattle game looking for some kind of redeeming quality in Jarrett Jack. I could find none. His defense is okay, but I wouldn't say he's one of our better defenders. His rebounding is mediocre. He doesn't even take advantage of his size. Jarrett should be posting up guys like Ridnour. I can't say I've ever seen him take his man into the post. 

If Jarrett wants to be a starting point guard in the NBA, he needs to get his confidence up. He needs to take command of the offense and exhibit some leadership qualities on the floor. He needs to recognize when his man is starting to sag into the middle and make him pay. Right now Zach Randolph and Brandon Roy are constantly seeing double teams, but Jack has done very little to make opposing teams pay. 

Jack also needs to work on using his size to his advantage. He needs to take his man into the post and either score, or find the open man. We have so many mid range shooters on our team. Zach, LMA, and Roy are all great within 20 feet. 

Right now I think JJ is detrimental to our offense and he either needs to harden up or take a seat.


----------



## sportsnut1975 (Jul 6, 2006)

I kind of feel the same way. I really like JJ but some of his decisions are so bad. Being this far into the season and being the gym rat that he is plus watching tape with Nate he should not be making these mistakes. At this point I don't care if we leave JJ as the starter for the rest of the season but that spot better be open for Sergio to try and take this summer.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

He has a nice mid-range jumper, and finishes well when he gets to the rim. But those are his only qualities. He's going to be a solid backup PG in this league, but nothing more.

He's starting now because:

A. Dan "YMCA" Dickau is the worst player in the NBA.
B. Nate has something against Sergio. By his own words, it's his defense, which I feel is a cop-out, because Jack, Webster, and Outlaw are all bad defenders yet they log minutes, while Sergio produces more than any of them.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Jack is definitely struggling... but what's the alternative?

Sergio's almost certainly not ready. Dickau... eek. The Qyntel experiment at the 1 was a disaster, so that option is off the table. (Just seeing if you're paying attention  .)

Roy could slide to the 1 and we could start Martell or Travis, I guess, but do we want to weaken another spot to bench Jack?

It's a tough call, but the PG play right now is definitely the weak link.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's a tough call, but the PG play right now is definitely the weak link.
> 
> Ed O.


So with another season is Rodriguez ready enough to be a serious starter? If so, is Jack good enough to be a combo guard off the bench? If so, then by even next season, the position might not be the weak link.

On the other hand, if HQ is counting on Rodriguez and Jack (and to a lesser extent Roy and Dickau) to be able to handle the PG position next season and don't do anything to address it during the off-season....


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

I've reiterated this for the past few weeks, coach and managment MUST address the PG situation now before the season is over. We need to take the final part of the season and experiment with multiple lineups. Starting Sergio or at least playing him with the first unit should imo be the #1 priority. It's rediculous how people say Sergio hasn't played well but we know that he's a first pass point guard, if you put Steve Nash around the same pathetic second unit we have I don't think he's going to be that effective either. Sergio must be surrounded with capable scorers that the first unit possesses, I'm also one to think that Jack could be much better in the second unit, focusing on scoring first and passing second. 

They need to make an effort to play Sergio with the first unit and see how it goes.


----------



## chris_in_pdx (Jul 11, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> Dan "YMCA" Dickau is the worst player in the NBA.


Wow. I thought I'd read some ridiculous statements on this forum before, but I think this one takes the cake. I'm not Dan's #1 fan, but... you have some serious hate issues.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I can't see the harm in starting Sergio Rodriguez for one game and giving him extended minutes. This is the experimentation portion of the season and Sergio has responded well to increases in PT (as evidenced by the period when Jack went down with a concussion).

It's worth a try, especially when your team struggles to score 77 points at home against a team on a back-to-back.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think most likely you keep things as they are for now, but let the PG's know that the position will be a fight next year. But, if we do swap out Jack, here is the lineup I suggest:

PG: Roy
SG: Udoka
SF: Webster
PF: Randolph
C: Aldridge

I don't think Sergio has done enough either to take the spot, but Jack couldn't argue with Roy taking over.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

huey hates anyone who takes time over sergio basically......i'd like it if we traded jack(his value is pretty high) and resign blake

blake starts and sergio has one more year of backup, than by sergios third year he will be ready to start


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Funny, but I didn't see one of these threads after Jarrett rang up 30 points against LA earlier in the season. There's no doubt that he's in a slump, but PG is probably the toughest position to learn in the NBA. I don't know if Jarrett has what it takes to be the Blazers longterm answer at that position or not, but it's too early to give up on him now. Just for funsies, compare Jarrett's second season stats to those of Steve Nash in his THIRD year (the first one where he got similar minutes).

Jarrett Jack, 06-07: 
MPG: 34.7, FG%: .458, 3p%: .348, FT%: .872, RPG: 2.6, APG: 5.5, SPG: 1.2, TO: 2.34, PPG: 12.3

Steve Nash, 98-99 
MPG: 31.7, FG%: .363, 3p%:.374, FT%: .826, RPG: 2.9, APG: 5.5, SPG: 0.9, TO: 2.08 PPG: 7.9

I'm not saying that Jarrett's is necessarily going to develop into the player that Steve Nash is today, just that it's way too early to guess how he's going to turn out. Dumping on him right now, after a 5-6 game slump, is a little cheesy.


----------



## #10 (Jul 23, 2004)

I'm a big fan of Sergio, but he's been pretty ordinary since coming back from his injury. He doesn't really deserve to start (though JJ has been poor as well). It's incredibly frustrating watching Dickau get minutes over Sergio. I can only hope Nate's using that as a motivation for Sergio to work harder. I still hate seeing it though, Dickau has no future with the Blazers.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Funny, but I didn't see one of these threads after Jarrett rang up 30 points against LA earlier in the season. There's no doubt that he's in a slump, but PG is probably the toughest position to learn in the NBA. I don't know if Jarrett has what it takes to be the Blazers longterm answer at that position or not, but it's too early to give up on him now. Just for funsies, compare Jarrett's second season stats to those of Steve Nash in his THIRD year (the first one where he got similar minutes).
> 
> Jarrett Jack, 06-07:
> MPG: 34.7, FG%: .458, 3p%: .348, FT%: .872, RPG: 2.6, APG: 5.5, SPG: 1.2, TO: 2.34, PPG: 12.3
> ...


I don't think anyone is really "dumping" on Jack. I think that most people like myself suggest he would be better off in the second unit and Sergio in the first unit since Sergio's passing ability is vastly superior to that of Jack's. The second unit needs more scoring, Jack could focus on his strength (driving,scoring) in the second unit, rather than his weakness (distributing).


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

Jarrett Jack isn't a point guard. He's a combo guard. There's a reason guys like Antonio Daniels have never truly been successful in the NBA. They don't have a true position. Jack reminds me of Daniels, but without the athleticism. This team needs a true point guard. Maybe Sergio is that guy. Maybe not.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

I'd say it's a bit premature to not start Jack and wayyyyy premature for anyone else to take that position. However, I was so hoping that Nate would yank him quicker when he starts with that pouting face. I know he gets down on himself but not in a positive way. He seems to just sulk and lose confidence so easily. I'd like to see Nate yank him whenever he sulks because that emotion in a point guard is contagious on the floor and the whole team suffers.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I think Nate definitely needs to give Sergio more time on the floor. He's not ready to be a starter, but the fact that he played only 9 minutes against Seattle is ridiculous. I don't think Nate has anything against Sergio, but he definitely seems too close to Jarrett.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

NateBishop3 said:


> Jarrett Jack isn't a point guard. He's a combo guard. There's a reason guys like Antonio Daniels have never truly been successful in the NBA. They don't have a true position. Jack reminds me of Daniels, but without the athleticism. This team needs a true point guard. Maybe Sergio is that guy. Maybe not.


Amen, Brother Nate! Jack is a valuable player, but he is not a true point guard, especially in the open floor. He simply cannot run a fast break and fails to see open passing lanes.

He needs a serious dose of confidence. I mean, he should see Ridnour across from him and just lick his chops and take him down into the post and ABUSE him. Seattle just seems to confuse him more than other teams. It could be Jack, it could be poor preparation.

Unfortunately, he does not take advantage of the mismatches.

He does step up against the better guards and rises to the occasion, but needs to overpower guards where he has an advantage.

Sergio is without a doubt a true PG, but works better off the bench. Even so, I think you need to give him a shot at starting and see what happens.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

JJ is going through some tough times. I think it is a product of the fact this is the first full season and that he is a starting PG in the NBA. Although not a rookie, sort of a rookie wall kind of dynamic.

What I want to add to this thread is the talk about allocating PG minutes. Last year there was a bit of an uproar about Blake taking Telfair's minutes. The old "you shouldn't lose your starting job to an injury" and "Telfair is playing just as good as Blake but has more potential" type of arguments. That was probably Nate's biggest "area of attack" last year and many psoters jumped all over it.

Well a year later, Telfair has been delegated to third string PG getting very few minutes on the second worst team in the league, and Blake is a starter and positive contributor on the playoff bounds Nuggets.

It will be interesting to see where JJ (and Sergio) ends up in the league . . . but I feel deja vu with this whole PG controversy at the end of the season again.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I am glad that I read through the entire thread before I posted my thoughts about JJ's "rookie wall". At least KMD was able to keep the situation in persepective.

With all due respect - Sergio does not deserve much with his play in the last couple of games. If your options are 2nd year vet going through a slump or a rookie going through a slump - I can see why you go with the more experienced of the two. I wish however that at least one of them will snap out of it already.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

As much as I dislike Jack as the starting PG, you can't bench him over Sergio at this point in the season. It would absolutely destroy whatever confidence he has, and possible ruin him as a player for the rest of his career. Let him and Sergio "battle it out" (wink wink) next year for the job.

I cringe whenever he touches the ball though. Anyone else notice when McMillan puts in Sergio and Jack at the same time?!? Or like last night, Jack and Dickau. LOL. McMillan sure has a great sense of humor.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Wrapping up our 3rd horrendous season of pitifully losing to the dregs of the league, and Jarrett's 2nd season with the PG spot handed to him on a platter despite no improvement at all is waaaaaaaay too late to use the word "premature".

There is absolutely no denying Jack at PG is a failed experiment.

NOW is the time to try something else.

This summer is the time to get it flowing smoothly.

Next fall is the time to come out kicking *** and taking names.

3 friggin' seasons in the cellar is more than enough.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

chris_in_pdx said:


> Wow. I thought I'd read some ridiculous statements on this forum before, but I hink this one takes the cake. I'm not Dan's #1 fan, but... you have some serious hate issues.



31% from the field 25% from 3-pt range, from a guy whose only considered asset is scoring. He only ranks #406 out of 436 players in the NBA in that category.

So while there are others in his class like Jackie Butler or Von Wafer, it's certainly no streach to consider him the worst player in the NBA.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

As of late, none of the Blazer point guards have been playing well. Its flat out sad when Nate is searching for answers with Dan Dickau at the point. 

Here is my solution: Put Brandon Roy at the point. Then you can either go big in the lineup with Martell at SG, or go more traditional with Fred Jones, and have Brandon and Jones switch on defense so they guard the appropriately sized player.

Secondly: Tighten the rotation. Nate is using platoon substitutions when he should have a few starters out on the floor at all times. Tighten the rotation up, and keep some stability in the game.

Lastly: The Blazers should look at Acie Law seriously at the #8 spot in the draft. He is a gamer.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> As of late, none of the Blazer point guards have been playing well. Its flat out sad when Nate is searching for answers with Dan Dickau at the point.
> 
> Here is my solution: Put Brandon Roy at the point. Then you can either go big in the lineup with Martell at SG, or go more traditional with Fred Jones, and have Brandon and Jones switch on defense so they guard the appropriately sized player.
> 
> ...



My solution. Let Sergio start and play the bulk of the minutes. For just a FEW FREAKING GAMES. He's been magic on the court in limited time, why not see what he's really made of? What's the worst that can happen Nate? We'll get our asses kicked?

Jarrett Jack just doesn't cut it as a PG.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> What I want to add to this thread is the talk about allocating PG minutes. Last year there was a bit of an uproar about Blake taking Telfair's minutes. The old "you shouldn't lose your starting job to an injury" and "Telfair is playing just as good as Blake but has more potential" type of arguments. That was probably Nate's biggest "area of attack" last year and many psoters jumped all over it.
> 
> Well a year later, Telfair has been delegated to third string PG getting very few minutes on the second worst team in the league, and Blake is a starter and positive contributor on the playoff bounds Nuggets.
> 
> It will be interesting to see where JJ (and Sergio) ends up in the league . . . but I feel deja vu with this whole PG controversy at the end of the season again.


So, I guess if the analogy holds, next year Jack and Sergio will be somewhere else, and Dickau will be our starting PG. 

barfo


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

barfo said:


> So, I guess if the analogy holds, next year Jack and Sergio will be somewhere else, and Dickau will be our starting PG.
> 
> barfo


If that happens I will buy the beers for everybody to cry in.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> If that happens I will buy the beers for everybody to cry in.


I'll spill some milk, too.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Lastly: The Blazers should look at Acie Law seriously at the #8 spot in the draft. He is a gamer.


I think one reason to keep JJ as the starter for the rest of the year is to keep his trade value up. Statistically he is pretty good for a second year player and I think a lot of teams might want to trade for him. Perhaps, trade him to a team in the 8-12 range who would rather have a player with 2 years of experience as their backup/starting PG and use their pick to grab Law. I would feel very comfortable going into next year with Sergio, Acie and Brandon all able to play the point.

By no means am I wanting to dump JJ. I think he has a lot of potential and will become a good guard in the league and would be happy to see him on the Blazers next year. However, trading him for a player like Acie might make sense. Everyone is available for the right price. The only question is, what's the right price.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

barfo said:


> So, I guess if the analogy holds, next year Jack and Sergio will be somewhere else, and Dickau will be our starting PG.
> 
> barfo



Let's hope not. But if it does, and if the analogy holds, next year Sergio will be riding the pine for a top lottery team while Jack is starting on a playoff team . . . and Nate will be critized for the PGs Blazers minutes.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> I think one reason to keep JJ as the starter for the rest of the year is to keep his trade value up. Statistically he is pretty good for a second year player and I think a lot of teams might want to trade for him. Perhaps, trade him to a team in the 8-12 range who would rather have a player with 2 years of experience as their backup/starting PG and use their pick to grab Law. I would feel very comfortable going into next year with Sergio, Acie and Brandon all able to play the point.
> 
> By no means am I wanting to dump JJ. I think he has a lot of potential and will become a good guard in the league and would be happy to see him on the Blazers next year. However, trading him for a player like Acie might make sense. Everyone is available for the right price. The only question is, what's the right price.


I honestly don't think we would have to move up at all for Acie, unless Texas A&M goes real far in the tourney which would jack up his value, pardon the pun. I think he will be there where we are picking.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I honestly don't think we would have to move up at all for Acie, unless Texas A&M goes real far in the tourney which would jack up his value, pardon the pun. I think he will be there where we are picking.


I agree, but I want two players, especially if we are trading away Jack. We have three areas of need. PG, SF and backup PF/C.

With such a strong draft in SF's and C's, I don't want to miss out on them. By all means we should draft BPA but I would hope that that player was a SF or C if JJ is not traded, and if he is traded I want two players. 

Do you think a sign and trade of Outlaw or JJ could get us a #10ish pick, if so, I think we should look at that.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Jack starts because he's the best of a weak list of choices. I like both him and Sergio as prospects, but they are both just young, and PG is arguably the hardest position in the NBA for a young player to learn to really play well. Sergio is not ready, Dickau is not good, and Roy is busy playing SG. We could start Roy at PG, but I really don't understand how people can think Jack isn't good and then say we should be playing Martel more.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I also want Jack to keep starting to keep his trade value up. 

I think the Blazers will end up drafting above the area where Acie Law will be taken, but I want that kid on the team. If we can deal Jack to say, LAC, for pick 10-12 and take Acie Law I will be estatic. Law is a real clutch player. He just hits the shots. Draft Julian Wright with our own pick and Acie Law with LAC's pick. 

PG-Sergio/Law SG-Roy SF-Wright PF-Zach C-LaMarcus


----------



## Tim Lehrbach (Sep 17, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> Jack starts because he's the best of a weak list of choices. I like both him and Sergio as prospects, but they are both just young, and PG is arguably the hardest position in the NBA for a young player to learn to really play well. Sergio is not ready, Dickau is not good, and Roy is busy playing SG. We could start Roy at PG, but I really don't understand how people can think Jack isn't good and then say we should be playing Martel more.


My thoughts exactly.

As to the Acie Law chatter, I would imagine teams in a position to draft him would simply do so rather than trade their pick for Jarrett Jack. Law is every bit the talent Jack is and probably has greater value simply by being a fresher face to the league.


----------



## AudieNorris (Jun 29, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> My solution. Let Sergio start and play the bulk of the minutes. For just a FEW FREAKING GAMES. He's been magic on the court in limited time, why not see what he's really made of? What's the worst that can happen Nate? We'll get our asses kicked?
> 
> Jarrett Jack just doesn't cut it as a PG.



Your lust for Sergio clouds your thought process. Give it a rest. The worst that can happen is the Nate would lose control of the team.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Jarrett Jack Raw Stats vs. other PGs

PPG: 12.0 (16th)
Rebounds: 2.7 (Tie for 13th)
FG%: 45.44 (6th) (way ahead of Paul, Billups, Kidd, Arenas,...)
FT%: 87.16 (5th)
3FG%: 35 (Tie for 13th)
Assists: 5.5 (14th)
Steals: 1.17 (12th)
Fouls: 2.6 (Tie for 10th most fouls)
Assists/TO: 2.27 (28th)

Stats obtain from ESPN nba stats website, selecting each stats and
clicking on PG. Who it calls a PG could be debated, but these
debates would only help JJs ranking.

There are 30 teams, so the median PG would finish (15.5th)

If we were to average all these, it would be 14.111
(I counted the fouls as 20th). So, he's about the
14th best PG in the league in this simple scheme.

Of course, Assists/TO should probably be evaluated a little
more heavily, which would drop him a little bit. Regardless,
JJ is an average NBA starting PG TODAY. He will continue
to improve. His first 10 games were pretty terrible
statistically, and he does seem to have hit the "rookie
wall" (Yes, I know he's a 2nd year player, but he didn't
get regular minutes his rookie year).

Jarrett Jack Efficiency Stats vs. other PGs
From Knickerblogger.net

JJ has a PER of 14.60, good for 119th in the league, which
is 23rd for PGs in the league. This does seem low, but
remember that several of the PGs listed above him aren't
actually PGs at all (e.g. Allen Iverson)

From the stats above FG% and FT% are his strengths. Obviously,
if he shot more, his PER would go up. Some have complained
the JJ is not a "pure" PG, but rather a "combo" guard.
Obviously, he's a combo guard that doesn't shoot enough:biggrin: 
Don't hear any complaints about Billups, who is definitely a
combo guard who plays PG.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I *DO NOT *want Acie Law. He's basically a 6-foot shooting guard.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Law is averaging more assist than Jack ever did in college.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> I *DO NOT *want Acie Law. He's basically a 6-foot shooting guard.



He's the same size as Jack, and averages more points and assists than Jack did when he was in college.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> He's the same size as Jack, and averages more points and assists than Jack did when he was in college.


He's not as big as Jack. He's listed at 6'3", but he's clearly a couple of inches shy of that.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

wizmentor said:


> Jarrett Jack Raw Stats vs. other PGs...


Interesting numbers. I wouldn't have guessed that Jack ranked that highly in all those categories. I would guess, without checking, that part of that might be due to how many minutes he plays, but it looks good for a second year PG IMO.

Still, there's a lot to the game that isn't in the numbers. Can he lead? Can he defend? Can he create for his teammates? Can he make the big plays in crunch time? Can he fit in with the system in place? These are important considerations for any basketball player.

I think a lot of people don't like Jack because he isn't Sergio. He's not a uber-creative force and assist machine with future all-star potential. But not every team actually needs that. Derek Fischer wasn't that creative. Tony Parker doesn't get that many assists. Jason Williams had to tone down both aspects of his game to be effective on a contending team. Is Jack a guy who can run the point well with whatever unit(s) we'll have in a couple years? Who knows? He's young now and he's playing decently and competently, although inconsistently. I think he'll continue to improve with time, so I'm fine with that.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

ive seen acie law a few times, it really seems like he is a shoot first pg, i DO NOT WANT THAT......


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

TLo said:


> He's not as big as Jack. He's listed at 6'3", but he's clearly a couple of inches shy of that.



Just so you know, the official draft measurement of jack was 6'2 1/2 in socks. I doubt Law is a couple of inches shorter than that.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

rose garden pimp said:


> ive seen acie law a few times, it really seems like he is a shoot first pg, i DO NOT WANT THAT......



I'm not arguing against wanting him or not, but doesn't it seem weird that he did average more assists than Jack but people here still label him a shoot first PG.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

jack's problem is confidence - not PG skills or defense.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> jack's problem is confidence - not PG skills or defense.



I think he lacks a lot of skills. He is horrible at running the break


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I think he lacks a lot of skills. He is horrible at running the break


Many people besides you don't consider that to be the most important thing in basketball.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

AudieNorris said:


> The worst that can happen is the Nate would lose control of the team.


Or the best, depending on your POV.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I have often compared Jack to Kirk Hinrich; their numbers are quite similar for their second year and same age.

Kirk:
36.4 .397 .355 .792 0.4 3.5 3.9 6.4 1.6 0.3 2.29 3.20 15.7

34.7 .454 .347 .872 0.3 2.4 2.7 5.5 1.2 0.1 2.41 2.60 12.0

FWIW

iWatas


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

Who do you see running this team if Nate is no longer here? What coach do you see coming in and doing a better job? 

The best coaches are tied up on better teams!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Iwatas said:


> I have often compared Jack to Kirk Hinrich; their numbers are quite similar for their second year and same age.
> 
> Kirk:
> 36.4 .397 .355 .792 0.4 3.5 3.9 6.4 1.6 0.3 2.29 3.20 15.7
> ...


Interesting numbers again. I wonder what the opinion in here is of Hinrich. I think he's a pretty good player and a true PG, and now that I think about it I can see some similarities in their games. I'm most surprised by how small the assist/game differential is, especially because it seems that a higher proportion of Chicago's offense goes through Hinrich than it does through Jack here. KH had to share the ball with Gordon and Curry, but Jack has to share playmaking duties with Roy and Zach.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I simply do not see Jack as a playoff PG. I think his true value will be as a combo guard off the bench. If we can con' some team into surrendering a top 10 pick for Jarrett we have to take it and run.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I think he lacks a lot of skills. He is horrible at running the break



yes, because he lacks confidence - he thinks too much instead of acting.

also it's hard to get experience running a break when your coach doesn't want you to break.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Many people besides you don't consider that to be the most important thing in basketball.



Many people think getting easy layups and dunks isn't important? They must not know very much about how to win basketball games


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Many people think getting easy layups and dunks isn't important?


That's not what I said, but nice attempt to change the meaning of what I said. I said only that many people don't think that running the break is the most important thing in basketball, as in they don't share your singular focus on that one aspect of the game.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> That's not what I said, but nice attempt to change the meaning of what I said. I said only that many people don't think that running the break is the most important thing in basketball, as in they don't share your singular focus on that one aspect of the game.


I was only returning the nice attempt of yours. I didn't say it was the most important thing. I said he lacked the skill to do it.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Sergio rules. No arguments allowed. Sorry!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I was only returning the nice attempt of yours. I didn't say it was the most important thing. I said he lacked the skill to do it.


I was making fun of the fact that you bring up "uptempo" every day, from which we can conclude you do have a strange fixation, and also that you claim Jack lacks "a lot of skills" but you only listed one relatively minor one.


----------



## gambitnut (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree that we should try starting Sergio. I have no idea if he is ready, but I don't know if he can be much less ready than Jack is showing himself to be right now, and now is a good time to start finding out if he will be ready anytime soon.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I was making fun of the fact that you bring up "uptempo" every day, from which we can conclude you do have a strange fixation, and also that you claim Jack lacks "a lot of skills" but you only listed one relatively minor one.



I don't think he is the best dribbler either. He can't seem to "act on the fly". He is really good at passing the ball into Zach. He doesn't seem to be anything more than an average at best rebounder for his possition. He isn't the most consistant shooter. He is a very good FT shooter though, and does what the coach tells him to do.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

As it is now, Jack and Sergio are the perfect compliment to each other. If Sergio progresses to the point where he is a clear cut starter, then Jack will still compliment him, and be able to play the 2 as well. Jack is a good player. Maybe not as good as Sergio, but he is still worth having around.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

Jack is likely going to be traded. That is why he's getting so much playing time.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> I was making fun of the fact that you bring up "uptempo" every day, from which we can conclude you do have a strange fixation, and also that you claim Jack lacks "a lot of skills" but you only listed one relatively minor one.


Dudley, give it up please. You've clearly lost this exchange because you started off with a strawman argument. Jack is horrible at running the fast break, and he's also horrible and running the half court offense. He just doesn't have PG skills.

And getting fast break points is VERY important in basketball. And the fast breaks that we've muffed due to not having a player who can lead it has cost the Blazers games.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Blazed said:


> Jack is likely going to be traded. That is why he's getting so much playing time.


He's getting so much PT because he gives the team the best chance to win. 

Unless the Blazers get a very good offer in trade: Josh Childress, etc., Jack will be a Blazer for a long time.

When/If Sergio is ready to assume the starting position, Jack can slide to the backup.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Yega1979 said:


> Dudley, give it up please. You've clearly lost this exchange because you started off with a strawman argument. Jack is horrible at running the fast break, and he's also horrible and running the half court offense. He just doesn't have PG skills.
> 
> And getting fast break points is VERY important in basketball. And the fast breaks that we've muffed due to not having a player who can lead it has cost the Blazers games.


Jack is BAD at running the fast break, but he is effective at screen and roll and running the half-court offense. He is very good at finishing around the rim and has an effective mid range jump shot.

Jack can defend in the half court, which is more important than running the break, especially when the starting lineup is loaded with half-court players: Roy, Udoka, Randolph.

Sergio is more effective with the "fast" second unit: Jones, Webster and Outlaw. I see Joel taking over the back-up center spot next season and working well with the 2nd unit.

When Sergio can defend in the half court, he will be ready to start.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> When/If Sergio is ready to assume the starting position, Jack can slide to the backup.


Is that realistic though? How often does a 35 mpg starter/team captain get benched for a much younger guy, and go to the bench willingly and without causing problems? Particularly BEFORE he gets his first post-rookie contract payday? 

When (not "if") Nate eventually decides to bench Jack, it's going to have a huge impact on Jack's career and his wages. Starting NBA point guards make nice bank. Guys relegated to backup roles for better players generally make much less money. 

Benching Jack will put him on the Antonio Daniels career path, and Jack would be a fool (and a poor competitor) to be happy with that. Especially if he has any dreams of being the next Chauncy Billups. (Note: I don't think he has that kind of potential, but NBA athletes are famous for overestimating their talents.) 

I wish we'd been able to draft Sergio first. Jack might be content then to come off the bench, because that's all he'd have ever known. 

If we start Sergio, I think we have to trade Jack for the sake of chemistry. We don't have to dump him--he's got some real value. But we'd need to look at other teams and see if we can trade him for another quality backup PG, or perhaps a draft pick. 

Give Jack the chance to regain his starting job (and his hopefully nice contract) on another team. It's the right thing to do for Jack, and the smart thing to do for us.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

mook said:


> I wish we'd been able to draft Sergio first. Jack might be content then to come off the bench, because that's all he'd have ever known.


Jack had only started 4 games when we drafted Sergio. Nate got us into this situation by saying Jack's the man, he plays no matter what, and then sticking with that plan far too long. No doubt Jack would have been starting the first part of the year anyway, but if Nate hadn't tried to make him (and himself) comfortable by appointing Jack starter-for-life, he'd have more flexibility today. 

barfo


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

barfo said:


> Jack had only started 4 games when we drafted Sergio. Nate got us into this situation by saying Jack's the man, he plays no matter what, and then sticking with that plan far too long. No doubt Jack would have been starting the first part of the year anyway, but if Nate hadn't tried to make him (and himself) comfortable by appointing Jack starter-for-life, he'd have more flexibility today.
> 
> barfo


agreed. I've been complaining (whining?) all season about this very issue. every night should've been a fight between Jack and Rodriguez to justify themselves as a starter, at least since January. 

alas, the damage is done. Jack is going to have to go. 

the key is for us to pro actively go out and shop him for the best deal, so that it doesn't reach the point where Jack is forced to cause problems either on the team or in the media. history shows that players start complaining, their trade value will plummet and it'll only hurt the team chemistry.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I think that a lot of this conversation really points to one of the major problems of the Blazers. Team identity. The starting unit is slow and half court. The second unit is set to run. When playing in hybrid mode, they have no idea of what sort of pace they want to play. When the Blazers made their runs in the late eighties/early nineties they were a hard nosed defensive team that could run like mad. But when you brought the second unit in (The few pieces that came in), the teams identity did not change. They played the same. 

The unit that made the run to the WCF was the same way. Defensively tough minded. The second unit even more so. They played more half court then the Drexler days, but the same storyline. When the second unit came in the pace and plan of the game did not change. Pieces move in and out of the game, and the attack plan remains the same. Even with Sabonis in they ran. He was an excellent trailer. 

This team now, half the time they don't even know what pace of the game they want to play. 


The main thing the team needs is to create its identity, and mold the team around it. Honestly, I don't see the team being effective with a slow down game in todays NBA, with Jack and Zbo running the show. Jack makes too many mistakes. Zbo doesn't have a complete game. So make some changes, get the pieces you need, and move into todays NBA.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

hasoos said:


> Honestly, I don't see the team being effective with a slow down game in todays NBA, with Jack and Zbo running the show.


These are two different statements. The Spurs are very effective with a slow down game in todays NBA (I am actually thinking they are going to win it all this year). I agree with you however about the Jack/ZBo running the show - these two are no match to a Duncan/Parker duo - but then - there are not many players in the game as effective on both ends on the floor like Duncan.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

andalusian said:


> These are two different statements. The Spurs are very effective with a slow down game in todays NBA (I am actually thinking they are going to win it all this year). I agree with you however about the Jack/ZBo running the show - these two are no match to a Duncan/Parker duo - but then - there are not many players in the game as effective on both ends on the floor like Duncan.


I don't agree with you that the Spurs are a slow down team. Slower then say Dallas and Phoenix? Yes. But in the overall scheme of things, they have an excellent open court game when they get out to run, and have an excellent transition game. Do they force the tempo? No. But they will get out and run, and gun.

See the thing with the Spurs is they try to force the opposition into a half court game. That is to their advantage defensively. It does not stop them from running when they get the chance though.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

hasoos said:


> I don't agree with you that the Spurs are a slow down team. Slower then say Dallas and Phoenix? Yes. But in the overall scheme of things, they have an excellent open court game when they get out to run, and have an excellent transition game. Do they force the tempo? No. But they will get out and run, and gun.


I do not have the statistics for this year, but if you look at last year's pace statistics (an estimate of possesions and thus speed) - the Spurs were 23rd out of 30 in the NBA. This strikes me as slow.

2005-06 San Antonio Spurs - Basketball-Reference.com


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Current pace rankings:
(from http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats)

30. Detroit 89.8
29. Portland 91.1
28. Dallas 91.9
27. San Antonio 91.9
...
3. Phoenix 98.1
2. Denver 100.6
1. Golden State 101.2

Portland is definitely in good company in terms of tempo. Just not as offensively efficient (we are 21st, Dallas is 2nd, Detroit is 5th, SA is 6th).

Ed O.


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Current pace rankings:
> (from http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats)
> 
> 30. Detroit 89.8
> ...


Those stats confuse the whole "must be a fast running team" argument as the "slowest" teams are also some of the best. What this really says is that you can have a fast based team and be successful, and you can have a slow paced team and be successful. What matters are the players and the coaches (although in the playoffs, games slow down and I'd rather have a team more comfortable with that pace).

Peace


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> Dudley, give it up please. You've clearly lost this exchange because you started off with a strawman argument. Jack is horrible at running the fast break, and he's also horrible and running the half court offense. He just doesn't have PG skills.
> 
> And getting fast break points is VERY important in basketball. And the fast breaks that we've muffed due to not having a player who can lead it has cost the Blazers games.


It's not a strawman if the person actually says it, and MM does say mention "uptempo" and whine about a lack of fast breaks nearly every day. 

Our team is succeeding now beyond reasonable expectations for a very young roster, behind a strategy that doesn't fast break and with the supposedly horrible point guard. Doesn't that make you question your assumptions?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I don't think he is the best dribbler either. He can't seem to "act on the fly". He is really good at passing the ball into Zach. He doesn't seem to be anything more than an average at best rebounder for his possition. He isn't the most consistant shooter. He is a very good FT shooter though, and does what the coach tells him to do.


Yes, he is a pretty decent second year guard. After hearing you say you though Telfair was better than Steve Blake last year and that Webster was better than Ime this year, I'm not surprised you now want Jack replaced by someone younger. You seem to think the grass is always greener on the rookie side of the fence.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Current pace rankings:
> (from ESPN.com - NBA - Hollinger Team Statistics)
> 
> 30. Detroit 89.8
> ...


This is why I think that the supposed shift in the NBA in favor of faster paced teams is way overrated. Detroit plays slow, San Antonio plays slow, Miami last year played slow, and this year's likely champion Dallas also plays slow. If faster pace is supposedly better, why are the slow teams consistently winning championships? This is a question for you MM, and anyone else who thinks that "uptempo" is the best way to win.

Maybe you think Phoenix is going to break the streak of slow-dominance this year. It's possible, but even with their MVP and multiple all-stars, does anyone want to bet me that PHX beats slow-moving isolation-playing Dallas if they meet in playoffs this year? C'mon, how could a team with clunky Erick Dampier and DaSagana Diop at center that is 7th worst in team APG possibly win the championship? *snicker*


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I'm likin Ty Lawson right about now..


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

barfo said:


> Jack had only started 4 games when we drafted Sergio. Nate got us into this situation by saying Jack's the man, he plays no matter what, and then sticking with that plan far too long. No doubt Jack would have been starting the first part of the year anyway, but if Nate hadn't tried to make him (and himself) comfortable by appointing Jack starter-for-life, he'd have more flexibility today.
> 
> barfo


dude, seriously you trade away Telfair and Blake to show that Jack's your guy and then bench him at the start of the season for a 19 year old foreign rookie that cant speak english and has no playing time. Yeah right, that was never an option. No team in the NBA would do that. But going into next year you could bench him for a 2nd year player who's done excellent in limited time, has a grasp on english, big potential, and everyone loves playing with. 

Why is Mook the only person that makes any sense around here?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> dude, seriously you trade away Telfair and Blake to show that Jack's your guy and then bench him at the start of the season for a 19 year old foreign rookie that cant speak english and has no playing time. Yeah right, that was never an option. No team in the NBA would do that. But going into next year you could bench him for a 2nd year player who's done excellent in limited time, has a grasp on english, big potential, and everyone loves playing with.
> 
> Why is Mook the only person that makes any sense around here?


1. How do you know he doesn't speak english, I have seen him interviewed several times on camera and he seems to communicate all right to me. He even seems to communicate with Nate while in the game, and actually exchanging words.

2. He is 19 years old. How old was Telfair? How old was Telfair in his second season? Sergio has been playing European pro ball for years. They allow them to go pro at 16 over there. He also played in the world championships and the olympics. 

3. This is the NBA. Hot today, not tomorrow. Jack was the guy to go with out of those 3, because IMO it turns out they all stink. He was just the best of those 3. He has shown no improvement this year, just an increase of playing time. 

4. You play your best players. Sergio is better. 

5. People talk about Jack being better on defense. I don't recall Arenas scoring many points in the second half with Sergio out there.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

hasoos please learn to read before you try to comprehend what people are saying, re-read my post, and what I was responding to, and then you are probably going to feel a little bit stupid!


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

hasoos said:


> 1. How do you know he doesn't speak english, I have seen him interviewed several times on camera and he seems to communicate all right to me. He even seems to communicate with Nate while in the game, and actually exchanging words.
> 
> 2. He is 19 years old. How old was Telfair? How old was Telfair in his second season? Sergio has been playing European pro ball for years. They allow them to go pro at 16 over there. He also played in the world championships and the olympics.
> 
> ...


 First off, Arenas had a bad game last night. Under most circumstances, he would run circles around Spanish Choco.

Blake was the best PG on this team last year. That team was starting to get on a roll, when injuries and trades (especially Patterson) really hurt the team and blew up the chemistry.

Jack is just in his 2nd year and, when your a starter, the scout you big time, which makes it tougher to be successful. This is something Sergio does not have to worry about much - for now.

Blake is doing very well on one of the hottest teams in the NBA right now - and he starts. As was last year, he once again is playing along side an undersized (yet an amazing scorer) hybrid guard, which means Blake must again guard the bigger SGs. One thing Nate did teach Blake last year was good defense, and that has kept him in the starting lineup this year.

Telfair, who I still think is very talented, didn't pay much attention to the defense part and is paying for it with limited minutes this year.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> barfo said:
> 
> 
> > Jack had only started 4 games when we drafted Sergio. Nate got us into this situation by saying Jack's the man, he plays no matter what, and then sticking with that plan far too long. No doubt Jack would have been starting the first part of the year anyway, but if Nate hadn't tried to make him (and himself) comfortable by appointing Jack starter-for-life, he'd have more flexibility today.
> ...





mook said:


> barfo said:
> 
> 
> > Jack had only started 4 games when we drafted Sergio. Nate got us into this situation by saying Jack's the man, he plays no matter what, and then sticking with that plan far too long. No doubt Jack would have been starting the first part of the year anyway, but if Nate hadn't tried to make him (and himself) comfortable by appointing Jack starter-for-life, he'd have more flexibility today.
> ...


dude, seriously I didn't trade blake and telfair away, nor did I ask for them to be traded away. dude, seriously I didn't suggest that Sergio should start at the beginning of this season. 



darkhelmit54 said:


> please learn to read before you try to comprehend what people are saying, re-read my post, and what I was responding to, and then you are probably going to feel a little bit stupid!


dude, seriously pot, seriously kettle...

barfo


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

a note to hasoos and barfo

this is an explanatory note to you guys of what I was saying, for anyone who can't understand sarcasm, logic, or english

Barfo had said this is Nate's fault and he could have been starting Sergio right away then we wouldn't have the predicament of Jack being relegated to the bench, he would have already been there.

My response was:
"dude, seriously you trade away Telfair and Blake to show that Jack's your guy and then bench him at the start of the season for a 19 year old foreign rookie that cant speak english and has no playing time. Yeah right, that was never an option. No team in the NBA would do that. But going into next year you could bench him for a 2nd year player who's done excellent in limited time, has a grasp on english, big potential, and everyone loves playing with." 

the "you" intends that you're the GM, Pritch, Nate whoever, the blazers in general, it's a hypothetical situation!

So it meant that as a franchise "we" had just

traded two PG's to clear the way for Jack to start this summer, and he was on billboards and stuff, obviously he was the guy

Sergio was a 19 year old rookie, Nate has said he couldn't speak English well

so my point was...

it would be ludicrous to start this season with Sergio as the main guy or even someone who played much at all as a 27 foreign pick who had a few good practices and exhibition games, that is insane and would've been setting him up for failure. Jack came into this season knowing he was the man, Nate didn't make him that. The deal is that we made that quasi-commitment appearance when we traded Telfair and Blake, not at the start of this season.

but...

next year benching Jack for Sergio after he had a year of experience, more of a grasp on English, and chemistry with other players, is not so ludicrous.

I should have had a question mark after the word time, perhaps then it would've made more sense, still though I can't believe you couldn't pick that up. And you're frustrated and loaded response at me was rediculous and taking everything I said out of context.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> This is why I think that the supposed shift in the NBA in favor of faster paced teams is way overrated. Detroit plays slow, San Antonio plays slow, Miami last year played slow, and this year's likely champion Dallas also plays slow. If faster pace is supposedly better, why are the slow teams consistently winning championships? This is a question for you MM, and anyone else who thinks that "uptempo" is the best way to win.
> 
> Maybe you think Phoenix is going to break the streak of slow-dominance this year. It's possible, but even with their MVP and multiple all-stars, does anyone want to bet me that PHX beats slow-moving isolation-playing Dallas if they meet in playoffs this year? C'mon, how could a team with clunky Erick Dampier and DaSagana Diop at center that is 7th worst in team APG possibly win the championship? *snicker*


Allow me to jump in for a second. :smile:

I can't speak for anyone, but I've debated up tempo vs. slow with other posters A LOT, and the consensus is that most fans aren't begging Nate for a Phoenix-paced game, but rather a motion offense (which seems fast, compared to the traditional half-court offense). 

Think of the 2002-2003 Sacramento Kings. They didn't push the ball up the floor like Phoenix, but their motion offense kept the ball and players moving, creating mismatches and leaving guys wide open amid the chaos.

I once got into a lengthy debate with another poster, who ended up saying that that a motion offense is what he/she was looking for out of the Blazers, because their offense at the time (which has evolved this season) was predicated on dumping the ball into Zach and leaving him isolated on one side of the court.

If Portland had better perimeter shooters, they could get away with a San Antonio-like offense, and it would work. I wouldn't be opposed to that, because I don't care how "entertaining" a style of play is, just as long as it wins. I was extremely impressed with Detroit's 2004 title team, which was EXTRAORDINARILY methodical in its execution on both sides of the ball. The thing is, new rules have made that type of play much more difficult to run, which is why they're going toward a motion offense.

Sorry for the lengthy, mildly off-topic rant.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> a note to hasoos and barfo
> 
> this is an explanatory note to you guys of what I was saying, for anyone who can't understand sarcasm, logic, or english
> 
> Barfo had said this is Nate's fault and he could have been starting Sergio right away then we wouldn't have the predicament of Jack being relegated to the bench, he would have already been there.


Sorry, dude, but you are simply wrong. That is not what I said. Go back and read it again.

barfo


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

wastro said:


> Allow me to jump in for a second. :smile:
> 
> I can't speak for anyone, but I've debated up tempo vs. slow with other posters A LOT, and the consensus is that most fans aren't begging Nate for a Phoenix-paced game, but rather a motion offense (which seems fast, compared to the traditional half-court offense).
> 
> ...


It doesn't seem off-topic, but I do think that motion is just a style of half court offense. It's not inherently much faster (more "uptempo") than isolation. Sacramento at the time did push the ball up somewhat like Phoenix does. What distinguished them was that they ran the ball through the high post, with some uniquely skilled passing big men in Webber and Miller. Was it a true "motion offense"? I don't know. "Motion" usually is describing _player movement_, which is maximized to get guys open looks. The Kings were distinguished by ball movement, in addition to their propensity to push the ball on most possessions (utilizing 2 de facto PGs on the floor at all times to receive outlets, Bibby, Jackson and/or Christie), and the presence of a main rotation that was pretty offensively talented.

The point about Portland being better off with some better shooting is apt, although we aren't really that bad. Ime and Webster are good shooters at the SF position. Roy, Jack and Sergio aren't exceptional, but they all can hit 3s at a good enough % that you don't have to immediately cringe when they shoot from long range. It's my guess that Webster, Roy and Sergio will all continue to improve in that field.

But more player motion in the offense would help to free up guys for shorter shots and open up lanes for cutters. I think Nate is being deliberately restrictive of the players, because he doesn't trust their decision-making. With the youth and lack of veteran leadership we have on the roster, I think that's understandable. Frankly, we have a low BB-IQ roster right now. Isolation plays don't require as much thinking from players, except from the one or two players directly involed. Moving around, players moving without the ball or passing the ball around to break down defenses, requires decision making.

In Seattle though, Nate showed he could run the team looser, but he has to trust them to make good decisions. This seems like an appropriate strategy to me. Players instinctively like to run and gun, because it's fun, but what they gain in adrenaline-fuelled hustle with that strategy they generally lose in sloppiness, so it's good for the coach to teach good habits. Let the team learn to play under strict control first, then prove they can stay under control while letting them loosen up. I didn't see the last couple games, but before that it looked like Nate was letting the team play a little looser already, and I predict he will continue to do so as long as he feels the team isn't playing sloppy.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

Sergio = Legitimate Quality PG

Jarrett = Mediocre SG playing PG


Nothing more,nothing less


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

www.starbury.com said:


> Sergio = Legitimate Quality PG
> 
> Jarrett = Mediocre SG playing PG
> 
> ...


Not exactly a rigorous statistical analysis.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

darkhelmit54 said:


> Barfo had said this is Nate's fault and he could have been starting Sergio right away then we wouldn't have the predicament of Jack being relegated to the bench, he would have already been there.


no, barfo pretty much agreed with me that Nate has been wrong to hand Jack the starting job and 35 mpg for the entire season. 

nobody here (or really anywhere else) thinks Sergio should've started at the beginning of the season. it's ludicrous to even think that a late 20's draft pick who can't speak english should immediately be handed the starting PG duties. 

however, Sergio should've been given the chance to earn that starting job over Jack as the season progressed. or at least compete for starters minutes. it hasn't happened. 

for example, there were two months (January and March) where Jack has shot an abysmal 40%. given that he's a pretty mediocre passer, tacking on a crappy FG% should've been a big red flag. yet the poor shooting barely effected his minutes played. 

yet Sergio went on a 9 game stint of not playing at all in February, for no discernible reason. it's the same weird gap that Nate did to Aldridge in late December. 

overall, Nate's done a decent job of coaching the team. he wisely gave Roy all the minutes he could handle, for instance. 

but how he's allotted minutes for Rodriguez and Jack over this season has set us up to have to trade one of them pretty soon. it didn't have to be that way.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Our team is succeeding now beyond reasonable expectations for a very young roster.


Are we really? Before the season, most of the fans on this board seemed to think 29 to 34 wins for the year was pretty likely. That was without knowing we had the future Rookie of the Year on the team, the best PF in the draft, and the best PG in the draft. It was also without knowing Zach would average 25/10 for most of the season. 

And here we are right on pace to win around 30 games. 

I don't consider this season a failure. But to say it's exceeded my pretty reasonable expectations is a pretty big stretch.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I think there is a misconception that Sergio isn't getting minutes because Nate's "commitment" to Jack. But there are times when Nate goes to Roy and Dickau at the PG position instead of Sergio.

Sergio's minutes aren't a product of Jack's minutes but rather Nate's trust in Sergio's play at the PG position.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> This is why I think that the supposed shift in the NBA in favor of faster paced teams is way overrated. Detroit plays slow, San Antonio plays slow, Miami last year played slow, and this year's likely champion Dallas also plays slow. If faster pace is supposedly better, why are the slow teams consistently winning championships? This is a question for you MM, and anyone else who thinks that "uptempo" is the best way to win.
> 
> Maybe you think Phoenix is going to break the streak of slow-dominance this year. It's possible, but even with their MVP and multiple all-stars, does anyone want to bet me that PHX beats slow-moving isolation-playing Dallas if they meet in playoffs this year? C'mon, how could a team with clunky Erick Dampier and DaSagana Diop at center that is 7th worst in team APG possibly win the championship? *snicker*


Good point that could use a regular refresher. I think fans and writers are so excited about the idea and entertainment of running and the phenom that is Phoenix that they WANT fast paced teams to succeed. 

I do too. I want our Blazers to win, and I know Nate is doing the right thing by teaching the young players the right way to control pace, even if they can't execute it. Yet, I would love to watch a running, fast paced team. It is more entertaining. The Suns are more entertaining than the Blazers.

Phoenix is successful, but they have Steve Nash, as well as Amare and Marion. Three top shelf, grade A talents. Paired with a great coach. And yet, they have underperformed in the playoffs so far, though injuries have been a factor making it hard to get a read. The refusal of the owner to pay lux tax, unlike Dallas, has hurt them also during this window of opportunity. It isn't as if they sucked in the playoffs and looked bad even with the injuries. Jury is still out IMO.

Dallas used to have a fast pace. Now they have switched, after the departure of Nash, to a half-court game built around Dirk, who is unstoppable offensively in the half-court. They don't need to run to score. Now they control the pace, rebound better, prevent easy baskets by being in position, etc. And now they are better than ever.

What other teams run? Golden State, Washington, Denver. All teams that have done very little so far. To be fair they are all works in progress and may improve. But if teams with AI, Melo, Agent Zero, Baron, Richardson, etc. can't run with more success, will this fashion to run stay hot?


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I have always said that this NBA changing to a fast pace claim is not founded in results - but if there is something that Portland has that could make it a success in faster pace compared to teams like Denver, Washington and GS - is that Sergio seems like he could become the next Steve Nash. It would be better, however, to have the ability to run like that 25% of the possesions while still being able to control the pace and play half court the rest of the time. With that in mind - it seems to me that Nate is doing the right thing - bringing Sergio slowly, insisting that he gets better in the slower pace, improve his communication and defense. 

I know it is frustrating for some - but with all honesty, if Sergio was the starter and got all the minutes right now - I have my doubts about the team winning any more - they actually will probably win less since we have seen that the teams that give Portland the most trouble are Denver and Phoenix that dictate this fast pace.

I would rather have a slower learning curve for Sergio and see him blossom into a PG that can control the pace of the game and excel both in the half court and the open court systems in a couple of years - than have him running and gunning now. I do not think that Portland's talent/experience at this point is better than what Golden State has this year - so at best we will be a Golden State like success because we can not be patient? Seems rather short sighted to me.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian/Masbee--

I think it depends on how you define "success." you and I define it as winning the most games possible. I suspect a typical basketball team defines success as making the most money possible. 

money typically follows winning, but not always. maybe Golden State is selling a lot more tickets because fans know they are in for a show every night, win or lose. may sound like a small consolation, but for historically crummy teams it's at least something different to sell. 

it'd be interesting to compare attendance records between an uptempo team and a plodding team with similar bad records. I suspect that all else being equal, the uptempo team makes a lot more money.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

also, it's interesting to me that of the mediocre-to-bad uptempo teams mentioned here, they all have better records than Portland. 

it's conventional wisdom that a bad team should shorten the game by slowing it down and limiting possessions, thereby keeping them in it longer. 

but what if the opposite is true? what if it's easier for a bad team to win a few more games playing uptempo because: 
a) they get more encouragement from the fans
b) it's more fun, so they get less discouraged about losing
c) sloppy fast-paced basketball is often contagious. the Spurs will always execute, but would a less disciplined good opponent be more likely to get sloppy against a running team? I think so. 
d) so few teams play that style that it catches opponents off-guard. 
e) bad teams typically have more youngsters, and young legs can usually run longer than old legs. 

I'm not saying it's easier to win against elite teams, or in the playoffs. I'm just saying that maybe it's easier to go from being a 30 win team to a 38 win team playing uptempo.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

With all due respect, Washington, Golden State and Denver have better gunners suited for a fast pace game that Portland.

The Blazer's best scorer is a slow offense player. Portland does not have prolific scorers like AI, 'Melo, Baron Davis, Arenas/Butler. Some of our existing players might develop into this - but they are not there now.

So, I would argue that at best, Portland running and gunning would be a Golden States kind of success story. But, If you ask me what would have happened if you had to run with Sergio, Martell, Travis, Zach, Roy, Jack and Lamarcus - I would guess that the team would probably have a lower win percentage this year. If Martell gets hot - he is great - but this does not happen that often. Travis is questionable in the decision making process in the half court - I doubt he will be better in a fast pace offense. Lamarcus is great in the open court. I imagine that Roy would be too. Jack would probably be fine on the recieving end of the fast break (Sergio to Jack). Ime does fine on the fast break - but other than Lamarcus and Fred Jones - this team does not have established good finishers on the fast break.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> also, it's interesting to me that of the mediocre-to-bad uptempo teams mentioned here, they all have better records than Portland.


They have better rosters this season. Maybe that has an impact too?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> Are we really? Before the season, most of the fans on this board seemed to think 29 to 34 wins for the year was pretty likely. That was without knowing we had the future Rookie of the Year on the team, the best PF in the draft, and the best PG in the draft. It was also without knowing Zach would average 25/10 for most of the season.
> 
> And here we are right on pace to win around 30 games.
> 
> I don't consider this season a failure. But to say it's exceeded my pretty reasonable expectations is a pretty big stretch.


I also predicted 32 wins, which looks about right, and I did also say at the beginning of the season that Roy was a "lock" for ROY. There were many though predicting a lot lower. The Vegas over/under on Blazer wins was something like 23.5, so we have come in way over that. There were some good surprises, like Zach's production, Aldridge and Ime. There were also some bad ones, like Joel's weak play and Magloire's suckitude, and Webster taking a big step back. It goes both ways.

Yeah, we got some great players in the draft, but they are rookies. I love our young guys and where the team is going. I think it is going places. But if you stop judging our guys on potential and just judge them on how good they are this year, you see that our team just doesn't have the pieces to succeed right now. It's very young in the starting lineup and has even more young guys coming off the bench. It may be the youngest team in the NBA. It actually may be _one of the youngest teams in the history of the NBA_. We have one veteran scorer and no veteran leadership. Don't underrate that.

Nate has that team playing steady .400 ball, everyone playing within their roles, and the team generally hustling. That's a major success.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

Masbee said:


> Good point that could use a regular refresher. I think fans and writers are so excited about the idea and entertainment of running and the phenom that is Phoenix that they WANT fast paced teams to succeed.
> 
> I do too. I want our Blazers to win, and I know Nate is doing the right thing by teaching the young players the right way to control pace, even if they can't execute it. Yet, I would love to watch a running, fast paced team. It is more entertaining. The Suns are more entertaining than the Blazers.
> 
> ...


Your points are excellent, but I have a slightly different point of view.
Instead of up-tempo vs. half-court, I think of easy baskets. The problem
with the current Blazers imho is that they give up way more easy baskets
than they get. Dallas, while not being a running team in the post-Nash
era, still gets plenty of easy baskets. The reason for this, I think, is
that good defense will lead to easy baskets for teams like Dallas.

Perhaps the Drexler Blazers are a model for this. They did like to run,
but it's not as if they pushed the ball up every time. Being a very, very
good rebounding team and having some very good athletes, they got a lot
of easy baskets.

It's about defense and rebounding, and converting those to easy baskets.
However, even that won't work if the outlet passer waits for the PG
to come to him, which is what our current Blazers do more often than not.:thumbdown:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

wizmentor said:


> Your points are excellent, but I have a slightly different point of view.
> Instead of up-tempo vs. half-court, I think of easy baskets. The problem
> with the current Blazers imho is that they give up way more easy baskets
> than they get. Dallas, while not being a running team in the post-Nash
> ...


So your saying when Jack runs the break, and doesn't pass the ball, and only dribbles the ball with one hand, and blows a layup taking it in or doesn't hit the trailer, its not an easy bucket?:biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> andalusian/Masbee--
> 
> I think it depends on how you define "success." you and I define it as winning the most games possible. I suspect a typical basketball team defines success as making the most money possible.
> 
> ...


I think you've definitely hit on something here. I think, and this relates to what Masbee was saying too, that fast-paced teams do sell more tickets. Phoenix is possibly the biggest draw in the league, and they are on TV all the time despite being from a pretty small market. Denver is a .500 team and they also are probably a huge draw. Fans like fast pace.

And I think that's part of the reason people perceive the league to be changing. Certainly, there are more teams actually going small and fast, fun and gun, but I think people overrate the degree of change and don't recognize how many of the very good teams aren't doing that. People want to see that kind of ball, and that kind of ball makes up a disproportionate amount of the games they actually do watch, and both of those I think skews peoples' perceptions of how much of the league is actually doing that.

Also, there certainly are different ways of defining success. Players and fans do have more fun running, so it's possible a bad team might squeeze out a few more wins by pushing hard on the tempo by taking advantage of that energy. _ Maybe_. But look at the teams doing it. Memphis (worst in the league), Golden State, Washington, Toronto, Phoenix. It's not a great list. PHX is great. Toronto is surprisingly good, but they actually started out the season playing faster, but slowed the pace down because it was too sloppy, and have had more success since. New York also started out the season committed to running, but soon abandoned it when it was clearly not working. They changed to a game predicated on Eddy Curry's post scoring, and have gotten a lot better as a result.

_Maybe_ we could grab a couple more wins this season by playing fast and loose, but I don't think maximizing wins in the short term should be our primary goal. Pritchard and Nate have both said specifically, and I agree, that the ultimate goal is to _build a championship contender_. That means building a team that plays the kind of basketball that succeeds in the playoffs. Maybe it seems premature for last-year's last-place team to talk about championships, but I honestly don't think we are that far off. We have the personnel to be a good team, and if we add some other good or one other great piece, and let them grow up, then we will be among the top teams in the league.

And right now we want our players, the guys who will potentially lead us to the promised land when they grow up, to be learning good habits and playing the right way. My definition of success for this franchise right now is to build a solid foundation for a future championship run. *I think our ultimate goal is to be like San Antonio, not Golden State, so we should take the most direct path possible.*


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

wizmentor said:


> Your points are excellent, but I have a slightly different point of view.
> Instead of up-tempo vs. half-court, I think of easy baskets. The problem
> with the current Blazers imho is that they give up way more easy baskets
> than they get. Dallas, while not being a running team in the post-Nash
> ...


Easy buckets are definitely a good thing (and isn't it a bit amazing we are a .400 team without them?), but I think this falls under the category of stuff that Nate will let the team do when he is confident they are ready. Sergio is great on the break, and Nate doesn't seem to hold him back from pushing it when the opportunity arises. Who else can? I know some people like to bash Jack for lacking fast break ability, but it's not always the PG who runs the break, and we don't really have anyone else at any position who is both fast and a confident ball-handler and passer.

We also don't get that many opportunities. Like Wiz said, it starts with defense. The Blazers are in the bottom third or teams in steals/game, and in the bottom half in blocks/game. We're 5th last in defensive rebounds and we are_ dead last in opponent TOs_, which I think tells a lot of the story right there. We're a young team, and thus a bad defensive team. As this improves, and as Nate gains confidence in the decision-making abilities of our young players on the break, I think we'll eventually see more easy buckets. Not until then though.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> And right now we want our players, the guys who will potentially lead us to the promised land when they grow up, to be learning good habits and playing the right way. My definition of success for this franchise right now is to build a solid foundation for a future championship run. *I think our ultimate goal is to be like San Antonio, not Golden State, so we should take the most direct path possible.*


Toronto has Coangelo and are trying to create on man elements of the Phoenix model in the East. They have an Amare caliber player in Bosh. They have an interesting offensive talent that creates all kinds of mismatches in Andrea. Could he be a better Rashard Lewis? Ford fits that style. Etc. It will be interesting to see what they can do after Shaq fades and Detroit runs its course.

The Blazers with Pritchard and McMillan setting the tone are trying to create on the elements of the San Antonio model. Of course, if we don't get Oden to build around, we won't have the dominant big man which is the real key and "secret" of the Spurs. But a modification might be the Payton/Kemp Seattle model, which is also based on controlling tempo (Payton and the other smart guards knew what to do), quality team role players, a trapping defense, solid rebounding, and fast break when possible. Could Roy be our Payton and LaMarcus our Kemp? We can dream right?

McMillian and Pritchard are the wrong guys if we want a Phoenix clone. If Allen wanted that he should have hired Iavorini instead of McMillan, and he should have hired Coangelo when the Suns cut him loose. We don't have those guys, so we will get some combination of the Spurs and old Sonics systems and styles.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

It's not about running or not running! It's about playing well rounded and to your strengths, taking advantage of mismatches in other teams weaknesses, and having the least weaknesses of your own. Teams with one focus are easier to have a game plan against and find the weakness to take down. A team based on motion with lots of players who can score in a variety of ways will always have a way to be productive and frustrate another team, it's just finding what that is. Great teams can execute well in the halfcourt when the situations and matchups call for it, but convert in transition on fast breaks when an easy opportunity is available. Depending on your personel the balance of contrast between the two is found, but if you can't do one or the other, a good team will take advantage of that. Your best players should play to their best strengths but their roles game to game change according to their competition. You can't have five guys running on a fast break! You can't have five guys on the perimeter just shooting threes! You can't have 5 guys going for every rebound! You can't have five guys in the post! You can't have five guys who are primary ballhandlers! This is why well rounded awesome players who play to their strengths and don't get abused on defense or offense?

Players like: Roy, Aldridge, Iguodala, Kirilenko (w/o injuries and everything), Garnett, Rasheed...and the list goes on 

Sheed (if he always played to his strengths could abuse a smaller quick guy in the post, or a guy like Shaq he could take out of his element and shoot the outside shot, luring away from where he was most effective. 

But it's also great to have game changers who are great at one thing! You just don't want them to get taken away what they're good at, and get put in positions to fail and play to their weaknesses (Shaq on Sheed). These players can take advantage of and abuse the other teams weaknesses, BUT the other team also knows exactly what these players are going to try to do and plan around it. THE TRICK is to get these types of guys proficient in the other areas of their game so that they don't get taken advantage of and cheated on in the other areas of their game (If Sergio becomes a deadly shooter, defenses have to play closer on him, thus opening him up to drive easier.) If you can get "game-changers" adequate in other areas they will better utilize thier strengths. But some game changers, if they don't re-fine other areas of their game will not be effective against certain oponents and can't force their playing style in a situation where it will not work against superior oponents.

The game changers I love are players like:
Shaq, Nash, Iverson, a shooter like Glen Rice or Reggie Miller (just running off screens and shooting, Rip Hamilton), Sergio (hopefully eventually) 

It's all about mismatches, execution, and being on the same page! But you have to get players who play to their strengths depending on the matchup and in doing so take advantage of the competition but also recognize when their teammates are hot or have a bigger mismatch than them, this is where it's also very important to have unselfish players who view themselves and their teammates realistically. Great teams will play different in style game to game!

Defense does not win championships!
Running does not win championships!
A strong post game does not win championships!
Passing does not win championships!
Shooting does not win championships!
Rebounding does not win championships!

A combination of all of these through teamwork with efficiency and exploiting your opponents biggest flaws in all of these areas wins championships!

Stop reducing things to "running" "post games" or "defense", that's ludicrous and downright ignorant!


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> It's all about mismatches, execution, and being on the same page! But you have to get players who play to their strengths depending on the matchup and in doing so take advantage of the competition but also recognize when their teammates are hot or have a bigger mismatch than them, this is where it's also very important to have unselfish players who view themselves and their teammates realistically. Great teams will play different in style game to game!


I think San Antonio plays this way, which is exactly why I'd like our team to be like there team.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

darkhelmit54 said:


> It's not about running or not running! It's about playing well rounded and to your strengths, taking advantage of mismatches in other teams weaknesses, and having the least weaknesses of your own. Teams with one focus are easier to have a game plan against and find the weakness to take down. A team based on motion with lots of players who can score in a variety of ways will always have a way to be productive and frustrate another team, it's just finding what that is. Great teams can execute well in the halfcourt when the situations and matchups call for it, but convert in transition on fast breaks when an easy opportunity is available. Depending on your personel the balance of contrast between the two is found, but if you can't do one or the other, a good team will take advantage of that. Your best players should play to their best strengths but their roles game to game change according to their competition. You can't have five guys running on a fast break! You can't have five guys on the perimeter just shooting threes! You can't have 5 guys going for every rebound! You can't have five guys in the post! You can't have five guys who are primary ballhandlers! This is why well rounded awesome players who play to their strengths and don't get abused on defense or offense?
> 
> Players like: Roy, Aldridge, Iguodala, Kirilenko (w/o injuries and everything), Garnett, Rasheed...and the list goes on
> 
> ...


Hey, that reminds me of an earlier post in another thread:

http://www.basketballforum.com/port...g-style-rediculous-mentality-perceptions.html


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

From the ESPN game recap ESPN.com - NBA - Recap - Trail Blazers at Hawks



> "A couple of weeks ago coach asked me if I was ready to take over this team," he said. "If he asks me again, I'd say I have taken over this team."


I don't think I'd say Jarrett has taken over the team. Not by a longshot.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

i see so many positive things with him...

tonite i was saying to myself, "now i know why jack belongs here..."

he seems to be the glue of the team, IMO. i think he's a good floor general. it just bothers me that sergio can't get those minutes. i dunno, i really want to keep him but he may need to switch to backup, even though i think he has proved worthy as a starter. i don't see the bad decision making many of you are claiming. and i watch nearly every game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I like Jack. I like Sergio as well. Neither of these guys seem to have huge ego's and I think a two point guard system with Jack playing a handful of minutes at the 2 while Roy is taking a breather could work out. This is something we need to sell to Jack until Sergio is ready to be the starter.


----------



## ehizzy3 (Jun 12, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> I'm not arguing against wanting him or not, but doesn't it seem weird that he did average more assists than Jack but people here still label him a shoot first PG.


being a pass-first pg isnt based on assists


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I always like Jack and you can see that he does more on the court than just get assists - you can see him directing people on defense and talking to his team mates during the games and time outs. Sergio is fantastic and could become the next Steve Nash - but he is not there yet and at this point - JJ has proven to be fantastic for a late 1st round, 2nd year player.


----------



## NateBishop3 (Jul 22, 2003)

rose garden pimp said:


> being a pass-first pg isnt based on assists


When they come in such high numbers they do. It's kind of hard to put up that many assists in such quick succession if you're looking for your own shot.


----------



## darkhelmit54 (Jan 23, 2005)

i know that in sports leadership and yelling at teammates and everything is very valued and seen as a big quality to have in a player, and i hear jack talk about it and everything a lot, and you see him in the interviews saying the right things but i wonder if the rest of the team actually sees him as a leader or if he just knows what to say and sort of takes the role. i've been in situations before where someone just knows the right things to say as a leader but no one actually thinks that great of him, and I know Lamarcus and Sergio are supposedly close friends. It seems like Roy is the beacon of stability and taking the big shots he seems a lot more leader-esque than Jack, I would love to talk to somebody on the team and get the in side scoop.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

darkhelmit54 said:


> i know that in sports leadership and yelling at teammates and everything is very valued and seen as a big quality to have in a player, and i hear jack talk about it and everything a lot, and you see him in the interviews saying the right things but i wonder if the rest of the team actually sees him as a leader or if he just knows what to say and sort of takes the role. i've been in situations before where someone just knows the right things to say as a leader but no one actually thinks that great of him, and I know Lamarcus and Sergio are supposedly close friends. It seems like Roy is the beacon of stability and taking the big shots he seems a lot more leader-esque than Jack, I would love to talk to somebody on the team and get the in side scoop.


That's a good point too. It's hard for us to know how the team feels, really. We do know that Jack was voted the favorite point guard of the three by the team after last season, and was third on the team in the vote for captains (only 1 vote behind the winners Zach and Joel, IIRC), so it would seem he is well-regarded. In contrast, I've heard that Martel is not well liked by his teammates. That he thought he could put himself into a leadership role, and he did make at least one statement publicly about this last season, but the team tuned him out because he couldn't back it up on the court. A leader definitely isn't someone who just talks, but rather someone who can get people to listen and do.


----------

