# Fire Nash before the draft?



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Given his failure to draft Chris Paul, added to his stubborn insistence on drafting Telfair (over such strong objections from the head of scouting - remind me of his name, someone - that he resigned), dare we trust Nash with another top draft pick?


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

meru said:


> Given his failure to draft Chris Paul, added to his stubborn insistence on drafting Telfair (over such strong objections from the head of scouting - remind me of his name, someone - that he resigned), dare we trust Nash with another top draft pick?


Sounds to me like Pritchard is doing most of the work on the draft..they mentioned it on the air last night even. Said he has been working really hard on draft scouting etc. 

I trust Pritchard alot more then Nash.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> Given his failure to draft Chris Paul, added to his stubborn insistence on drafting Telfair (over such strong objections from the head of scouting - remind me of his name, someone - that he resigned), dare we trust Nash with another top draft pick?



Ok, who should we have drafted instead of telfair?

who exactly behind Telfair is so much better than we should've taken him at 22?

As for Warkentein, big ****ing deal he had "strong objections". I'm so tired of hearing that (is there actual links to that? Im not saying there isn't but we fans have a tendancy to just repeat things, we "hear"...from other fans and pass it off like it's true). 

I think that we should give Martell a little more time before we fire Nash for drafting him (and trading for Jack). 

Paul is nice and all, but we'd be a team with no decent SG prospects this year, so I don't know exactly how good Paul would make the team.

this "fire nash" stuff is getting old. It'd be nice if we gave stuff a chance first.

I think we're putting too much emphasis right away, on what the team has done, and hasn't done (telfair and webster). 

It's not like Nash drafted those guys telling us they'd be stars right away. He (and the team) said "be patient fans".


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

No. Why would we fire him (and this time explain it using good and valid reasons) before the draft.

Please let me know who we should have picked instead of Telfair. 

And why we would draft Chris Paul if we needed a shooting guard.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> *Ok, who should we have drafted instead of telfair?*
> who exactly behind Telfair is so much better than we should've taken him at 22?
> 
> As for Warkentein, big ****ing deal he had "strong objections". I'm so tired of hearing that (is there actual links to that? Im not saying there isn't but we fans have a tendancy to just repeat things, we "hear"...from other fans and pass it off like it's true).
> ...


Jefferson obviously.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

tlong said:


> Jefferson obviously.


It'd sure be nice to go retroactively backwards in every draft to select optimum players based on the future squad. Al Jefferson was on ABSOLUTELY NO ONE'S RADAR for Portland....did any fan actually think to themself: "Gee, Al Jefferson is a high school prospect that's going to pan out....we should get them". 

I don't recall ANY scouting reports or fans here wanting to draft him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> Jefferson obviously.


so they should've drafted a guy who they had stocked at that position already? 

It's not like Damon and NVE were long for this team, and they had just signed Zach to an anchor.

And it's not like Jefferson is really showing anymore than Telfair.

Oh I know, blah blah, he's per 48 king of the world..blah blah blah..

he wouldnt' be getting enough run here to justify you getting a boner over him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Xericx said:


> It'd sure be nice to go retroactively backwards in every draft to select optimum players based on the future squad. Al Jefferson was on ABSOLUTELY NO ONE'S RADAR for Portland....did any fan actually think to themself: "Gee, Al Jefferson is a high school prospect that's going to pan out....we should get them".
> 
> I don't recall ANY scouting reports or fans here wanting to draft him.


there were some, but mostly they've all stopped harping on it, cept for tlong.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> Jefferson obviously.


Obviously? His career stats show quite the contrary.

7.3 pts, 4.8 rebounds, .4 Ast, .9 Blocks, .42 steals

I am not a Telfair supporter but Jefferson is no different then Telfair..alot of potential, underachieving.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

Hap said:


> there were some, but mostly they've all stopped harping on it, cept for tlong.


Could you imagine how bad the dissent around the blazer fans would have been with Jefferson, no PG prospects at that time.....then telfair gets taken and excels somewhere.....we'd almost would have had to have Damon Stoudamire in the long term prospects...ugghh...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I would bet that any GM in the league would rather have Jefferson than Telfair at this point...with the possible exception of Nash. Jefferson has shown great promise, Telfair has not.


----------



## Xericx (Oct 29, 2004)

tlong said:


> I would bet that any GM in the league would rather have Jefferson than Telfair at this point...with the possible exception of Nash. Jefferson has shown great promise, Telfair has not.


I would take that bet. 

There probably would have been riots around this place if we took Jefferson at 13 & missed out on Telfair at 22. Especially considering we had just placed all of our marbles on Zach Randolph, who at the time was an up and coming 20/10 guy.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> I would bet that any GM in the league would rather have Jefferson than Telfair at this point...with the possible exception of Nash. Jefferson has shown great promise, Telfair has not.



yeah....ok.

I don't know why i expected you to be able to argue differently than you ever have.


----------



## BigDtoPDX (Jun 30, 2005)

I have no problem with Nash and I think Nate being here now will make Nash look even better. GM's are judged basically on hits and misses, and a lot of luck. There are only a few GM's out there who might be able to be viewed as bona fide geniuses with the touch of gold.

Nate's presence will have a tremendous impact on the draft, he will want to get "his" type of players. That means NO, absolutely NO, stretches or project-potential players. They will be smart, efficient players who have received some solid college coaching and have excelled in college. I also believe that Nate/Nash will draft by this guideline, not to draft for need by position.

I would imagine that Nate will go after Morrison pretty hard. He's a NW guy, smart, coaches son, was around good coaching and can flat-out play in college.

Some of you located in the Portland to Seattle area might be able to confirm...but wasnt it known that Nate had a pretty solid grip in the draft?


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

Xericx said:


> It'd sure be nice to go retroactively backwards in every draft to select optimum players based on the future squad. Al Jefferson was on ABSOLUTELY NO ONE'S RADAR for Portland....did any fan actually think to themself: "Gee, Al Jefferson is a high school prospect that's going to pan out....we should get them".
> 
> I don't recall ANY scouting reports or fans here wanting to draft him.


I'm pretty sure thats who Warkentien wanted and the reason he resigned.

....

And as far as tlong goes.....his argument for Jefferson's potential? Why....he's 6'10. Of COURSE he has more potential than Telfair. Because potential is directly alligned with the height of a player.

:boohoo:


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

BigDtoPDX said:


> Some of you located in the Portland to Seattle area might be able to confirm...but wasnt it known that Nate had a pretty solid grip in the draft?


I THINK so....but dont take my word for it.

Seattle's management just never listened to Nate. I know that he didn't want that big euro guy they drafted this year....and pretty sure he also didn't want Robert Swift last year. He may have had input on the Ridnour seleciton.....but I really dont have anything to base that on.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BigDtoPDX said:


> Some of you located in the Portland to Seattle area might be able to confirm...but wasnt it known that Nate had a pretty solid grip in the draft?


Nate probably had little to do with the Sonics picks (it was rumored he didn't like their last 3 picks, but that might've just been inuendo). And he had nothing to do with our pick last year.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I'm pretty sure thats who Warkentien wanted and the reason he resigned.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


There's a lot more truth to that statement than you think.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> I would bet that any GM in the league would rather have Jefferson than Telfair at this point...with the possible exception of Nash. Jefferson has shown great promise, Telfair has not.


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: 

Did you look at his stats? You call that "great promise?" His stats this year or only slightly better then his career ones...very slightly. 

As I said I am not a Telfair supporter but I had to point out this arguement is insanely weak.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

No there's not.

There's a lot less truth to that statement than _you_ think.

Your turn.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Once again I say that all of these decisions were not made soley by Nash. It was the three headed GM of Nash, Allen and Patterson that chose these people. If Allen and Patterson are still around I just don't think that firing Nash and bringing in another guy is going to help.

I could see Allen and Patterson making Nash the scape goat and firing him. That might appease the public for a bit but I don't think it will really do us any good.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RPCity said:


> No there's not.
> 
> There's a lot less truth to that statement than _you_ think.
> 
> Your turn.


Oh really? Please enlighten me to the multitudes of players under 6 feet in the NBA.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

tlong said:


> Oh really? Please enlighten me to the multitudes of players under 6 feet in the NBA.


Is that really relevent? Telfair's not a 5'9, 5'10 point guard like Damon. If you want a guy of comparable size who has achieved success, look at Allen Iverson.

One player is 6'0, 165 pounds.

The other is 6'0, 160 pounds.

Also, while I"m at it....would you like me to share with you a list of guys 6'10 and taller who have NOT achieved success in the NBA? I'm pretty sure I have given you a list like that before....but you might want to see it again?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm not sure I have a huge problem with either Nash or Pritchard drafting for us. What I do have an issue with is Nash's inability to close deals out. He hasn't seemed to be able to complete major trades for whatever reason. Maybe his fault, maybe not.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RPCity said:


> Is that really relevent? Telfair's not a 5'9, 5'10 point guard like Damon. If you want a guy of comparable size who has achieved success, look at Allen Iverson.
> 
> One player is 6'0, 165 pounds.
> 
> ...



I'm glad you think Telfair is the next Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, he's not. The relevancy is this: a *much * higher percentage of tall people make it in the NBA than short people. That is obvious. I find it puzzling that people can't accept the obvious at times.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

tlong said:


> There's a lot more truth to that statement than you think.


That's why Sam Bowie was more valuable than Michael Jordan. Ooops.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

crandc said:


> That's why Sam Bowie was more valuable than Michael Jordan. Ooops.


Jordan was a 6-6 shooting guard. Good size.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> I'm glad you think Telfair is the next Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, he's not. The relevancy is this: a *much * higher percentage of tall people make it in the NBA than short people. That is obvious. I find it puzzling that people can't accept the obvious at times.


The other even more "relevant" fact is that Al's stats suck...just like Telfair he has alot of potential and has underachieved. Nothing indicates he will be a better NBA player then Telfair in the long run.

Heh wait a minute does Jefferson have a Nike contract?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> The other even more "relevant" fact is that Al's stats suck...just like Telfair he has alot of potential and has underachieved. Nothing indicates he will be a better NBA player then Telfair in the long run..
> 
> Heh wait a minute does Harrington have a Nike contract?



I have no idea what you're talking about. What does Harrington have to do with anything?

Look at Jefferson's stats for the 6 games immediately prior to his injury. He was playing very well. His problem this year is related to a high-ankle sprain he suffered in training camp. His game was slow in developing this season due to this injury and when he finally had it going he got injured again. He is going to be a very productive player in the league.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about. What does Harrington have to do with anything?
> 
> Look at Jefferson's stats for the 6 games immediately prior to his injury. He was playing very well. His problem this year is related to a high-ankle sprain he suffered in training camp. His game was slow in developing this season due to this injury and when he finally had it going he got injured again. He is going to be a very productive player in the league.


I meant Jefferson sorry..as you will see the stats I posted earlier are for him. I'll edit it..thanks for pointing it out. 

So you have determined he "has great promise" after watching six games? Seems a bit premature to me. 

And we all know you work at Nike..so I was just making a joke.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

thanks to a contact that I met through a online bball gm class....i was actually able to sit down for lunch with Mr. Warkentein

it is absolutely fact that he resigned due to the conflict over whether or not to draft Jefferson or Telfair

he was COMPLETELY against drafting telfair and said jefferson was "THE" guy 




just thought i would clear that up


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

tlong said:


> I'm glad you think Telfair is the next Allen Iverson. Unfortunately, he's not. The relevancy is this: a *much * higher percentage of tall people make it in the NBA than short people. That is obvious. I find it puzzling that people can't accept the obvious at times.


I agree with you. Telfair is not the next Allen Iverson. They are very different players with different strengths. They do, however, have similler builds and body structures.

I also agree with you that a higher percentage of tall people make it in the NBA than short people. But lets take a look at other factors that occur in the development of players leading up to becoming NBA Superstars.

Most people who are tall are encouraged to play basketball during their formative years. If not that early, it is likely they will be steered in that direction at some point during their pre-professional life. It is a obvious that height is a huge advantage in the sport, especially at the amateur level. Shorter players are equally discouraged from playing for the same reason. Short people are more likely to find another activity they are good at or enjoy more than basketball. For this reason, you'll see much more tall people in the NBA than short people. That of course will lead to a higher percentage of tall players at the star level. Of course....you also find a large percentage of tall players who become busts too. Also a larger portion of the NBA in general is tall rather than short.

Lets look at this a little deeper.

A reason that you see many tall players become busts (especially ones with low levels of experience such as high school or foreign players) is that they have been able to dominate the competition they've seen for so long just by being tall. Because of that, they haven't had the need or opportunity to develop their skills further. They often become lazy even. The tall players you see becoming stars get to that point because of an inner drive, not because of neccessity.

Shorter players on the other hand need to work harder to reach the same point as tall players (that of being considered an NBA ready amateur or a highly rated prospect). They work to develop their strengths. They're used to having to work to hide or improve on their weaknesses. You see less short players reaching this point, but when you do (especially one with little or no college experience), you see them willing to work to improve and get better once they are in the pros. Like shooting 1000 shots a day in the offseason.

It is the work they are willing to put in as a professional, combined with the talents they already have, that will determine if a player is a star or all star in the NBA. NOT how tall they are. Could Jefferson be a star? Of course....but its not because he's tall, so could Telfair. Could Telfair be a flop? Of course....but its not because he's short, so could Jefferson. 

Looking strictly at correlations without looking for other reasons is falling victim to a fallacy. Could there be a relationship between height and success? Yeah....I suppose I'd be willing to admit that to some degree. But its by far not the only one, and I personally rank it pretty low on the list of things that lead to success.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

Im not going to agree with the people saying we didn't have a sg because we did we had dixon to play sg i agree we didn't have a prospect though.Chris pauls's career will be over very soon he's very injury prone.It would be nice to have him but with his injurys who knows when hes done.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

I'll take riehldeal's word that, as reported widely, Jefferson was Warkentien's guy. As far as I'm concerned, the absolute major benefit of drafting Jefferson would be that we would have HAD to draft Chris Paul. But let's compare Telfair's and Jefferson's stats per 48in this, their second season (stats, as always, thanks to the excellent Doug Steele:

Scoring Statistics
Player Min Pts Tnd/48 TC EJ FF PF DQ STA PTS/48
6 telfair,sebastia 1024 361 15.12 1 0 0 107 1 21 16.92
6 jefferson,al 876 388 24.63 1 0 0 133 0 7 21.26

Rebounding Statistics
Player AS/48 ST/48 TO/48 BK/48 OR/48 TR/48
6 telfair,sebastia 7.2 1.5 3.2 0.1 0.5 3.8
6 jefferson,al 1.4 1.5 2.6 2.2 4.5 13.8

To my mind, the most important stat is Tnd/48, which refers to Tendex and which is a sort of all-around stat. Here Jefferson clearly kicks Telfair's butt. And Telfair's numbers are pretty pathetic. For point of comparison, here are the team numbers for Tnd/48:

Skinner - 25.78
Zach - 22.24
Joel - 21.91
Blake - 20.60
Ruben - 19.41
Dixon - 18.59
Miles - 18.30
Theo - 17.87
Jack - 16.22
Viktor - 16.13
Travis - 15.26
Smith - 15.23
Telfair - 15.12

Now, obviously these aren't the be-all and end-all. If you get spotty minutes, they can be unrepresentative either way. And I don't think Ruben is that good (or Skinner, but of course that's only over 2 games). But they're as fair a way of comparing as any. And Telfair has NEVER scored well.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Double post. But while I'm here, it's worth looking at Kenny Anderson's 91-92 rookie stats (since it's my belief that Anderson is a good comparison for Telfair - both wildly overhyped NY playground players, slight and left-handed with wonky shots) when he was widely considered a disappointment, playing only 17 mpg behind then-viewed-as-journeyman Mookie Blaylock. Even in 17 mpg, his Tnd/48 was 20.11. The next year was a bust-out year for him, and he got 36.5 mpg and a rep that made him an all-star shortly afterwards. His Tnd/48, though, only went up to 25.03.

When he was playing for us in '97-'98, his Tnd/48 was back down to 18.64. (Compare that to the mighty Arvydas's might 31.08.) Conclusion: Tnd/48 doesn't vary hugely over a career.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Thanks for the supporting evidence Meru. Of course it's easy for me to see with the naked eye that Jefferson is a more valuable player than Telfair. I don't need stats to back it up.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> Thanks for the supporting evidence Meru. *Of course it's easy for me to see with the naked eye that Jefferson is a more valuable player than Telfair*. I don't need stats to back it up.


Dude you work at Nike you are NOT a NBA scout.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> Dude you work at Nike you are NOT a NBA scout.


lol


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

sa1177 said:


> Dude you work at Nike you are NOT a NBA scout.


What makes you think NBA scouts, or NBA GM's for that matter, are so intelligent? I'm certain that I could evaluate talent at least as well as the majority of them.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I have a gut feeling that Pritchard will be the GM come this summer...

I heard a couple different times that he was the major reason we brought in Skinner...


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I have a gut feeling that Pritchard will be the GM come this summer...
> 
> I heard a couple different times that he was the major reason we brought in Skinner...


I hope you're right. I thought he should have been named GM last summer.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> What makes you think NBA scouts, or NBA GM's for that matter, are so intelligent? I'm certain that I could evaluate talent at least as well as the majority of them.


And I am 100% sure you or I or probably anyone else on this board couldn't. 

You have a bit of a ego don't you? What would your response be if someone who didn't even work in your field came to you and said they could do your job as good or better then you without even a single day of training?

I was not, and am still not, questioning intelligence here but rather knowledge and expierience.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

tlong said:


> Thanks for the supporting evidence Meru. Of course it's easy for me to see with the naked eye that Jefferson is a more valuable player than Telfair. I don't need stats to back it up.


No response to my post? Did you even read it? 

I know its kinda long....but I'm interested in hearing your opinion of my reasoning.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

The assumption that we should have drafted Jefferson because Paul would be in the next draft is wrong. At of June, 2004 there was absolutely NO guarantee that Chris Paul was coming out for the 2005 draft. In fact, many people thought it was about 50/50 deep into the college season last year. You can't draft based on who you think might be in the next draft. 

That said, they probably should have gone ahead and picked Chris Paul and dealt Telfair for a mid first rounder to get Gerald Green or Martell Webster. Oh well. Let's rehash it a few thousand more times.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Fork said:


> The assumption that we should have drafted Jefferson because Paul would be in the next draft is wrong.


True, but that's kind of a moot point, because nobody was making that assumption. The assumption we're making is that Chris Paul _wasn't_ picked because we had Telfair and Nash thought he was good enough not to need Paul. That's a totally different assumption.

Telfair wasn't picked because we needed a PG - he was picked because Nash had a "gut feeling" he was going to be great.



> That said, they probably should have gone ahead and picked Chris Paul and dealt Telfair for a mid first rounder to get Gerald Green or Martell Webster. Oh well. Let's rehash it a few thousand more times.


Okey-dokey.

But of course, the reason to rehash it here is to point out that Nash is not a good drafter, and as we're headed into a looooong run of lottery picks, we really need a tip-top talent evaluator in charge.

(And is Pritchard that guy? How do we know? I know he was in San Antone before, and if anyone can prove he was behind the drafting of Parker and Ginobili, then I'll happily jump on his bandwagon.)


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

tlong said:


> Thanks for the supporting evidence Meru.


No need to thank me, tlong - I didn't do it for you. This thread wasn't actually supposed to be all about you.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

meru said:


> No need to thank me, tlong - I didn't do it for you. This thread wasn't actually supposed to be all about you.


I know you didn't do it for me, but thanks anyway. This thread isn't all about me? I may not be much, but I'm all I think about.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

RPCity said:


> I agree with you. Telfair is not the next Allen Iverson. They are very different players with different strengths. They do, however, have similler builds and body structures.
> 
> I also agree with you that a higher percentage of tall people make it in the NBA than short people. But lets take a look at other factors that occur in the development of players leading up to becoming NBA Superstars.
> 
> ...



I'm only responding to this because you asked me to. I disagree with your assumption that size is not what constitutes the greatest correlation between success and failure. If it were not true there would not be so many tall players in the NBA. There are many other factors, but size is the biggest.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

IMO, no matter who Nash had drafted, there would still be calls for his head.

If he'd drafted Jefferson instead of a much-needed PG, some people would argue that he should be fired because we already had Zach (and needed a point guard).

If he'd drafted Paul instead of a much-needed shooting guard, some people would argue that he should be fired because we already had a similar point guard in Telfair (and we needed a shooting guard).

If anything he took the safer route, and still gets lambasted. Of course, if we were winning it might not be such a hot-button issue.

Portland fans tend to be of the "draft the best player available" mindset. Nash seems to be more like the "draft the best player at the position we need to fill" strategist; although I'm certain he would never pass on a frachise player like a Lebron James if one were available at our pick. 

In the absence of that kind of talent available at our pick, or until our team doesn't have such an overall derth of talent, I think he'll continue to factor in need. If we were a playoff team with all the pieces, one would hope he would start to pick for best player available.

How many GMs are there in the league who aren't hated by their fan base I wonder? There was Jerry West, before he left LA. Even he can't be that safe anymore.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I have a few words to say:


Telfair=20 years old.

Webster=19 years old.




GIVE THEM A ****ING CHANCE


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> I have a few words to say:
> 
> 
> Telfair=20 years old.
> ...


 :eek8: oooh bad words and big letter..but still I say: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

sa1177 said:


> :eek8: oooh bad words and big letter..but still I say: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Thank you. That said, Blazers are def. drafting Morrison if he is there. IMO, I think it's down to 3 people for us:

LaMarcus Aldridge
Adam Morrison
Rodney Carney

Aldridge give us a nice young C who can sit behind Theo 1-2 years and we wouldn't have to resign Joel.

Morrison is an instant impact player, and if he was drafted look for a Miles trade..

Carney, IMO is the pick here. Great defensive player and has improved every stat every year in college. He is def. Nate's type of player because of his defense.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> The assumption that we should have drafted Jefferson because Paul would be in the next draft is wrong. At of June, 2004 there was absolutely NO guarantee that Chris Paul was coming out for the 2005 draft. In fact, many people thought it was about 50/50 deep into the college season last year. You can't draft based on who you think might be in the next draft.


The odds of Paul coming out were very good, even at the time of the 2004 draft. One of the reasons that, on draft day, I thought Telfair was a reach at 13 was because of the strength of the '05 class (Paul, Williams, Jack).

Clearly, you can't draft solely based on the talent in upcoming drafts, but it should be a consideration, IMO.

Ed O.


----------



## SolidGuy3 (Apr 23, 2005)

If I was Paul Allen, I would fire Nash before the draft. John Nash doesn't seem to be a winner, the Blazers have done worse each season he has been here. If I was GM of the Blazers, I would draft BEST PLAYER AVAILABLE and in that case it would be Adam Morrison who I compare to a SF version of Dirk Nowitzki.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

freak you are forgetting bargnani

so solidguy you are back to hating webster again? :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I'm not all that pissed we missed on Chris Paul..we got Martel who I think is really going to be a stud if Nate would just play him! OUr problems are not with the PG play, its the frontcourt, so I really don't think Paul would have had as big of an impact here as he has had with the Hornets. Draft Morrison or Bargani this year, then hopefully Oden in 07 ( :drool: ) and it should be ON like donkey kong


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i agree mas

chris paul is way too injury prone its small injuries now but he is a ticking time bomb when it comes to a serious injury and his I got to play the next game attitude will only make the injuries worse compounding them.

paul is fools gold 
webster will be the real deal!


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Anyone else love Bargani's potential but scared of drafting a Euro? I think Morrison could be the next Dirk, not Andrea. If you watch Adam, he can get his shot off on anyone at anytime. His step back is deadly, he can also fade away, and he is agressive. Wouldn't it be nice to finally have a player to give it to in the 4th quarter and have him take it to the hole and get to the charity stripe for a change? Morrison: I'm sold on him.


----------



## letsmakeadeal (Feb 23, 2006)

*Re: blazers are just fine*

they have drafted "gems "and their record reflects the great "drafting" by nash and company
i say let him draft forever becuase his eye for talent is very good

maybe telfair is just better than he has shown... maybe he is just hideing it for a breakout party
"yeah thats it" maybe in twelve years he comes into his puberty and wham he is great 


LMAO
wake up and smell the ALLEN
blazers are a joke :curse: 









lmao


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> freak you are forgetting bargnani
> 
> so solidguy you are back to hating webster again? :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo: :boohoo:


No. I just don't think we are gonna draft him. He's a PF/SF isn't he? I'd rather go with a position of weakness, namly C and SF. We need Aldridge or a Carney/Morrison type player in this draft. Not a Euro PROJECT.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

pf is a weakness 

bargnani is just as big as aldridge and he is ripping up the euroleague.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

*Re: blazers are just fine*



letsmakeadeal said:


> they have drafted "gems "and their record reflects the great "drafting" by nash and company
> i say let him draft forever becuase his eye for talent is very good
> 
> maybe telfair is just better than he has shown... maybe he is just hideing it for a breakout party
> ...


Yet here you are joining a message board (a brand spanking new member in fact) about the Blazers. 

Welcome !! :banana: :banana:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

meru said:


> I'll take riehldeal's word that, as reported widely, Jefferson was Warkentien's guy. As far as I'm concerned, the absolute major benefit of drafting Jefferson would be that we would have HAD to draft Chris Paul..


thats assuming that they wouldve been able to draft paul.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> pf is a weakness
> 
> bargnani is just as big as aldridge and he is ripping up the euroleague.


The Euroleague is also much weaker than college. Andrea would just be a project and we have enough of those. We need a College C or SF, and this draft has quite a few of them. We have Telfair, Webster, Outlaw, Ha, Jack that we all need to develop we shouldn't be adding Andrea to that list.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

college is better than Euroleague by scouts the Euro League considered better talents many write it off because of location location location


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> college is better than Euroleague by scouts the Euro League considered better talents many write it off because of location location location


I'm just saying, don't get as many minutes, where you can see on TV and such the better competition and the players from college are much more NBA ready than Euros, which is what we need.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

1) Jefferson has done little to show he is a better player than Telfair...and per 48 stats are crap...100% worthless IMO

2) You cannot measure Paul against Webster alone, but must judge Paul against Webster, Jack and whomever POR picks with the DET pick....Let's see where this comparison is three years from now before you start making definitve judgements.

3) HS players take time to develop, this isn't a theory but a FACT.....Judging Telfair\Webster value as a pro, one or two seasons into their career is severely shortsighted IMO...

4) POR should do whatever it takes to draft Adam Morrison this year...He may or may not be a "star" player, but I think it is worth rolling the dice on him, and hoping that he will become such a player...He is clearly IMO a step above the other players in this draft...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yup morrison all the way


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

For some reason I have a strong feeling that Nash would like to have a shooter of Morrison's caliber at SF next to Martell. Talk about spreading the court. Two deadly shooters, the lightening quick Telfair, Zach around the basket and a defensive stopper at center (who knows how to set a high pick, let's say, Joel). With two deadly shooters outside and Zach operating inside, Telfair would average double digits in assists, easy. If lightening were to strike and we added this Oden guy as well, I imagine a few "die hard" fans might return to the garden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Blazer Bert said:


> For some reason I have a strong feeling that Nash would like to have a shooter of Morrison's caliber at SF next to Martell. Talk about spreading the court. Two deadly shooters, the lightening quick Telfair, Zach around the basket and a defensive stopper at center (who knows how to set a high pick, let's say, Joel). With two deadly shooters outside and Zach operating inside, Telfair would average double digits in assists, easy. If lightening were to strike and we added this Oden guy as well, I imagine a few "die hard" fans might return to the garden.
> 
> Hey, I can dream, can't I?


Sounds like a good plan, and the one Nash is heading toward right now. Of course, getting Oden means another season like this next year. But surrounding Telfair and Zach with shooters, with Joel manning the bucket, that's the future right there.
And then it's just about finding another team to lay Darius on to get rid of his ridiculous contract. Hopefully Isiah sticks around this summer to talk again.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

what happens if we, by some struck of missforntune (which would be actually, common place for this franchise) don't get the #1 pick in 07?

lets not put all our eggs in the basket, only to have marcus camby, shawn bradley or chauncy billups fall into our laps (granted, NOW Billups is good..but I'd still take Duncan over Billups 7 days a week and thrice on sunday).


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

placing our hopes on landing the top pick in the 07 draft is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard....has the portland franchise that i love so much fallen that far

as for andrea.....anybody who writes off him as a possibility clearly never saw the video clips posted of him on this forum....cant teach a 7 footer that can dribble and shoot like a guard ....i am not sayin that he should be our pick but just that any conversation minus him as an option is not a valid one

as for these future plans of nash and involving zach......let it be clear that Zach is NOT a nate guy....esspecially at the PF spot....nate likes the tough, rugged, only gonna set screens type big men....brian skinner is 1,000 times more a Nate type big guy.....sad thing is with his HUGE deal Nate might be stuck with him 


as for the main topic of the thread.....I agree that Nash should and needs to be fired before the next draft....he has screwed up enough, let someone else have a turn


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> as for the main topic of the thread.....I agree that Nash should and needs to be fired before the next draft....he has screwed up enough, let someone else have a turn


at worst you could say he 'screwed up' with not drafting Paul, but thats putting the cart waaaaaaay before the horse there. 

why don't we give webster some time to play some decent minutes and show whether or not he can or can not play (not to mention Jack too) before we start saying he screwed up.

What would happen if Webster turns out to be a better pro than Paul (I know it's impossible to fathom, Paul is the greatest thing ever)?

what happens if we hire a new GM and he drafts a player that doesn't play great off the bat, do we turn on him because we have no patience or cognitive ability to fathom that we're impatient?


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

HAP 

i completely understand what you are sayin and agree

when i say he has screwed up....i would tend to say that it has more to do with him adding two more high schoolers and two euros (essentially high schoolers)

although i would tend to say that Sebastian was a mistake all together and i am not just saying that now after seeing him struggle.....my reaction to us taking him was not a positive one (not a fan of small sub 6 ft tall PG's)


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> HAP
> 
> i completely understand what you are sayin and agree
> 
> when i say he has screwed up....i would tend to say that it has more to do with him adding two more high schoolers and two euros (essentially high schoolers)


whats wrong with viktor?



> although i would tend to say that Sebastian was a mistake all together and i am not just saying that now after seeing him struggle.....my reaction to us taking him was not a positive one (not a fan of small sub 6 ft tall PG's)


I think he's shown that he wasn't a mistake at the pick he was taken. he's already shown marketable improvement (even if those who don't like him won't admit it) and he's shown tha the's coachable and willing to improve. 

comparing how he and webster do to paul and (well, Im not sure who else) really is basically setting them up for failure.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

I would really like to watch the blazers play.But where i live and my dads work scedule its kinda hard for me to ever watch a game .I watch every game i can on tv.Didn't Paul go to college and Martell is out of hs.If so i think u should compare Pauls first or second year in college to martells first year in the nba.Might be a little dumb because college is different from nba but i like to compare the 2 like that.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i agree that sebastian has improved....HOWEVER, what people cite for his improvements is his jumper and that is not what i want to hear about him improving.....i figured hey atleast we are getting a pass first PG but that is NOT what we got 

i guess i should apologize for trying to hold the GM accountable...


here is a better explanation of my main point here.......john nash has done very little in the past two drafts to help and reduce the effects of this rebuilding phase......while viktor is the lone example of a guy that didnt have the transition period issues, he clearly isnt a big time player now or ever will be


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> i agree that sebastian has improved....HOWEVER, what people cite for his improvements is his jumper and that is not what i want to hear about him improving.....i figured hey atleast we are getting a pass first PG but that is NOT what we got


than you need to realize that having a pass first PG is really only beneficial if that guy can actually shoot..otherwise, they'll just leave him open and double who he's passnig too.


> i guess i should apologize for trying to hold the GM accountable...


or you could realize that you're being critical of a painting before it's even done being painted?



> here is a better explanation of my main point here.......john nash has done very little in the past two drafts to help and reduce the effects of this rebuilding phase......while viktor is the lone example of a guy that didnt have the transition period issues, he clearly isnt a big time player now or ever will be



what, rebuilding is fixed over night?

gosh, I didn't know it was that easy.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i never said the rebuilding was over .....all i was sayin was that we are clearly in the cellar and part of the reason for that is the drafting of players not ready to make a contribution

BUT it didnt have to be that way, thus he didnt help reduce the effects of this rebuilding or how bad it had to be

yeah i know the whole well he needs to be able to shoot to keep the D honest.....i know basketball 

but my POINT was that he doesnt even show the instincts of being a pass first guy.....smaller version of his cousin


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

since this thread is about firing nash before the draft i have some relavant questions: when is the draft? some time in june right? when is nash's contract officially up? is it the end of the season or some obscure month thereafter? sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere in this cruddy 6 pages thread but i started to read the thread and got annoyed by the same old arguments being continually rehashed and i'd like to know about the real issue. thanks!


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

go into user cp options and u can switch the posts u view on a page so it wont be so long.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> but my POINT was that he doesnt even show the instincts of being a pass first guy.....smaller version of his cousin


he is nothing like his cousin. Nothing at all. not even remotely close to what his cousin is like.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

"not even remotely close" ?!?!?!

come one you dont mean that......yeah he aint as bad as starbury but come on at least man up and admit that telfair isnt exactly the type of player that you thought you were getting when we drafted him

could the kid be more one dimensional when he drives to the hoop....and that dimension is force up a soon to be blocked the crap out of lay up attempt and NOT the dish out


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

riehldeal said:


> "not even remotely close" ?!?!?!
> 
> come one you dont mean that......yeah he aint as bad as starbury but come on at least man up and admit that telfair isnt exactly the type of player that you thought you were getting when we drafted him
> 
> could the kid be more one dimensional when he drives to the hoop....and that dimension is force up a soon to be blocked the crap out of lay up attempt and NOT the dish out


 :laugh: blocked the crap out of lay up. hahaha. good description man! i think it has to do with him bein too itty bitty to do much else than have the crap knocked out of him or the ball when he's in there with the big fellas. fast. yes. but short with no body control.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> "not even remotely close" ?!?!?!
> 
> come one you dont mean that......yeah he aint as bad as starbury but come on at least man up and admit that telfair isnt exactly the type of player that you thought you were getting when we drafted him


I thought we were getting a young flashy PG that the team and certain board members were trying to pass off as a "pass first PG", which wasn't terribly important tome.

But to suggest that he's anything like his cousin, is just guilt by blood.



> could the kid be more one dimensional when he drives to the hoop....and that dimension is force up a soon to be blocked the crap out of lay up attempt and NOT the dish out


which is why, I guess, he averages so many more shots per game than Blake does, eh?


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Hap said:


> I thought we were getting a young flashy PG that the team and certain board members were trying to pass off as a "pass first PG", which wasn't terribly important tome.
> 
> But to suggest that he's anything like his cousin, is just guilt by blood.
> 
> ...


i'm curious. since you are saying you thought you were getting a young flashy pg who's not pass first. (or perhaps i'm reading it wrong but that's what i think you said). do you think he "fits" into this organization since it seems Nate has made it clear he likes a steadier pass first guard over a flashier one and seems to be trying to "change" sebastian. and sebastian has made it clear he tried to change and felt it made him play worse "i need to get back to playing my way, etc". don't turn this into a stupid blake telfair argument either please i'm asking you on your opinion on telfair within this organization's system since you seem to have a lot of opinions on telfair. thanks.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

doesnt help that this savior brought in by nash was BEAT OUT by frickin steve blake

i mean come on! i am a steve guy but he aint exactly john stockton....speakin of crap, nash crapped his pants when steve took sebastian's spot

huge difference between the shots that steve puts up and those of telfair......steve moves the ball so much that the defense must react and thus ultimately sometimes the ball ends back to him wide open for a jumper.......i am not even gonna bother looking at the FG%'s but i am damn certain that steve blows sebastian out of the water there, so who should shoot more?????? plus i never said steve was the perfect example of a pass first PG if that is what you are trying to say when referencing steve

number one sign of losing an argument.....changing the topic (IE. turn attention to blake)

i do not mean that in a mean way, just wanna make it known that such claims as yours repeatedly come up in this forum when people speak badly of telfair......sebass supporters begin hating on steve


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

riehldeal said:


> "not even remotely close" ?!?!?!
> 
> come one you dont mean that......yeah he aint as bad as starbury but come on at least man up and admit that telfair isnt exactly the type of player that you thought you were getting when we drafted him
> 
> could the kid be more one dimensional when he drives to the hoop....and that dimension is force up a soon to be blocked the crap out of lay up attempt and NOT the dish out



He *wishes * he was as bad as Starbury. Stephon is twice the player Telfair is.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

The PG position is the most demanding job on a basketball team; especially one that requires the ball movement that coaches like Nate demands.

Blake, Telfair, and Jack are still maturing PGs that have plenty of upside. However, Blake has demonstrated the most consistent understanding of Nate's expectations, which is why he starts.

There is no way you can make judgement at this time. Blake's game has improved dramatically this year, so there is no telling how much better he will get. But, he is certainly on a good course. Jack & Telfair are just too early in their careers to draw much if any conclusions.

I mean, look at the age of the top PGs (Nash, Kidd, Billups, Iverson, etc) in the NBA - they're mostly in their early 30s in age right now. Gilbert Arenas is an amazing exception. But, actually Gil is more of "tweener" than a true PG.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

yes the position takes time to learn BUT

half of those players you mentioned (kidd and nash), possessed a PG feel right away

simply put....i have been disappointed by telfair's lack of PG feel (ex. driving the lane without losing dribble...."probing" the D....ala nash and stockton)

i am not sayin that he cant learn that but the more natural that ability is the better the chances of becoming a true great PG and overall success


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

tlong said:


> He *wishes * he was as bad as Starbury. Stephon is twice the player Telfair is.


And three times the cancer, ballhogging, shot chucking baby.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> doesnt help that this savior brought in by nash was BEAT OUT by frickin steve blake


repeating that doesn't make it anymore true. Big deal Blake is starting now. McGrady didn't start when he first came into the league. Nor did KG, or Kobe, or Jermaine.


> i mean come on! i am a steve guy but he aint exactly john stockton....speakin of crap, nash crapped his pants when steve took sebastian's spot
> 
> huge difference between the shots that steve puts up and those of telfair......steve moves the ball so much that the defense must react and thus ultimately sometimes the ball ends back to him wide open for a jumper.......i am not even gonna bother looking at the FG%'s but i am damn certain that steve blows sebastian out of the water there, so who should shoot more?????? plus i never said steve was the perfect example of a pass first PG if that is what you are trying to say when referencing steve
> 
> ...


Im not hating on steve, nor have I ever. But I'm just wondering why when something is said about Telfair,t hat it's funny that the same can be said about blake.

He dribbles a lot, he shoots just about as much, and he's as bad defensively. The reasons why thats true of Blake are completely different than that of Telfair.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

both nash and kidd played college


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

very good point Utherhimo


sadly for telfair, he may NEVER be the player he could have been if he had gone to college.....yeah yeah he could learn it to some degree but not the real learniing that occurs in college with a coach that truly cares and develops players as oppossed to just managing the players and their egos


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

riehldeal said:


> very good point Utherhimo
> 
> 
> sadly for telfair, he may NEVER be the player he could have been if he had gone to college.....yeah yeah he could learn it to some degree but not the real learniing that occurs in college with a coach that truly cares and develops players as oppossed to just managing the players and their egos


in most cases, the players learn more about the game by not going to college. Kobe didn't suffer by not going to college.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Hap said:


> repeating that doesn't make it anymore true. Big deal Blake is starting now. McGrady didn't start when he first came into the league. Nor did KG, or Kobe, or Jermaine.
> 
> 
> Im not hating on steve, nor have I ever. But I'm just wondering why when something is said about Telfair,t hat it's funny that the same can be said about blake.
> ...


Sorry. No. He doesn't dribble as much, he moves the ball much more. They probably do shoot about the same but Blake's percentages are better. and No he's not as bad defensively, did you see the game tonight? Blake is better on defense which is why they put him on much tougher players like Kobe.


----------

