# GAME THREAD: Portland Trail Blazers vs. Dallas Mavericks (Game 3)



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

<center><font size=5><font color=red>Portland Trail Blazers</font> 
*VS* 
<font color=blue>Dallas Mavericks</font></font></center>

<center>4-25-03
TV: ESPN
7:30 pm PST

 *<font color=red>VS</font>*  </center> </center>
<center>

_*Main Matchup*_
 *VS* 

 *VS* 
 *VS* 

*X-Factor:**
Zach Randolph*
</center>
<center><font color=red>*Portland (0-2) Dallas (2-0)*</font></center>

*Click on the pictures up above to access more information on the players and teams involved in the game.*


----------



## antibody (Apr 4, 2003)

I think the Blazers win game 3 if they play with the same intensity as in Game 2. Bonzi was unstoppable for sure but Dallas made numerous tough shots. Sheed needs to step it up as Bonzi did. They can be a tough 1-2 punch for sure...hitting free throws will help as well.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

I think that Portland wins in a close game, but Portland needs to go back to Dallas tied 2 - 2 not 3 - 1. One game at a time guys! Both games are winable, just like the first two! :sigh:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Anyone know the status on DA? And ED, for some reason, I don't want you to answer my question. I have no idea why...

:angel:


----------



## loyalty4life (Sep 17, 2002)

Thoughts on tonight's game? Predictions? 

I think the Blazers will win, they are great on their home floor in the playoffs. I like a big lineup, something like:

Daniels
Wells
Wallace
Randolph
Sabonis

Make it happen, Cheeks! Stop putting Damon and Jeff in at the same time. :|


----------



## brewmaster (Dec 31, 2002)

I want to see a frontline of Zach, Sheed, and Davis in at the same time. This lineup will confuse Dallas. They won't be able to defend it that well.

And if DA doesn't play (which seems likely), I want Bonzi to go to 2 guard and Patterson get the minutes at small forward.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

i fear the brooms will come out in this series and the Blazers will be barely recognizable next year...maybe, even the coach. This is a longtime coming and will be push into fruition.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> i fear the brooms will come out in this series and the Blazers will be barely recognizable next year...maybe, even the coach. This is a longtime coming and will be push into fruition.


Alex: And the question is... What do you feel about the series, Tom?


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> 
> 
> Alex: And the question is... What do you feel about the series, Tom?


I don't think i follow?


----------



## Kniner (Mar 27, 2003)

*Absolutely! WHERE IS THE BIG LINEUP?*



> Originally posted by <b>SteveSmith_08</b>!
> Thoughts on tonight's game? Predictions?
> 
> I think the Blazers will win, they are great on their home floor in the playoffs. I like a big lineup, something like:
> ...


I feel confident on our chances tonight - I sorta think we are better guarding Allas' backcourt without DA if he isn't going to be scoring. I think Cheeks knows DA can't handle Finley. 

What about Our Vedas? I noticed Cheeks didn't go to him at all in the 2nd half last game and I think the way to beat these Mav's is to go with the big lineup, big D rotation:


Randolph/Davis (PF)
Wallace (SF)
Sabas/Davis (C)
Stoudamire (PG)
Wells/Patterson (SG)

And every time Bradley touches the hardwood (after 1st quarter) Sabas should be in there banging him, drawing fouls. No one but Sheed should guard Nowitz and Wells and Patterson should be given special assignment on Finley. That leaves the other two guys to somehow contain the point of attack, but I don't know that any one player can stop Nash from penetrating.

What I do know is that on our end we aren't forcing mismatches or dictating much of anything offensively. When Sabas is in the game the only player who seems to be able to get him the ball is Damon. McInnis and Daniels simply cannot pass inside. I think that is also why Sheed's touches are down - we can't run a half-court with Damon on the bench. When he's in we are better, but we desperately need Scottie's minutes - it's obvious now.

ALRIGHT?!?! And now let's discuss the pick and roll. Is the rivalry and hatred with the Utah Jazz such a distant memory for our guys? Haven't we seen this again and again? All of a sudden the pick and roll is something new? It's like one of the first plays a player learns to defend right? Yet, hats off to Nelly for going to it and catching the Blazers stumbling in the 4th.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, i'm just glad the format has been changed to a best of seven series. last yeart when we were down 2-0, there really wasn't much hope.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>theWanker</b>!
> man, i'm just glad the format has been changed to a best of seven series. last yeart when we were down 2-0, there really wasn't much hope.


so instead of not much hope last year, now we have just a little hope..

woo!

:laugh:


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

I feel that the Blazers will get a split at the Rose Garden and go back to Dallas and be beaten. Note that this is not what I want to happen, but what I feel will happen. The Blazers don't appear to have it in them, and I think the Game 2 loss will probably haunt them.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Absolutely! WHERE IS THE BIG LINEUP?*

*KNiner*--I like your ideas about Sabonis being in there to get Bradley in foul trouble. However, I just don't see Cheeks changing his strategy to use him very much. The guys almost pulled off Game 2. That will make it all the less likely that Cheeks will make any major changes, particularly starting Sabas and giving him more minutes.

*SS08*--I like your big lineup. I don't see it being the starting 5, but I think Cheeks might use it. I hope so. 

I sure don't want to see DD and Sabonis out there together again. That was horrendous in Game 1. I'm not sure, but I think he did that when Rasheed hurt his ankle. Still....it was bad. I like a big lineup countering Dallas' big lineup.

Here's what I don't get:

Sabonis really isn't significantly slower than he ever has been in the NBA, but all of a sudden this season he isn't needed in the play-offs because he is too slow. Go figure. I realize Dallas is a running team, but I still think he could be better utilized than putting in his token minutes and sitting out the rest. 

Way back when we were all discussing the possibility of Sabonis returning to Portland, it was generally agreed that even though he is slow his passing makes up for his inability to run. Has this changed? Can't his passing be capitalized on in this series? Or is sprinting a pre-req for PT?


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

I'm not sure if Cheeks is the kind of coach who will make that kind of radical change in his starting lineup. You might see more of the "big lineup" that features Rasheed at SF, but I doubt they will start that kind of lineup.

Everyone please watch Dirk Nowitzki and his minutes. I pointed out after game #1 that he played every minute. In game #2 he once again played every minute - but this time, his jump shot didn't have the same spring in it for much of the game (although it looked OK in the 4th quarter). But he didn't have 4 days to recover this time - he had 2 days including a travel day. And he'll only have 2 days between tonight and Sunday to rest this time. If Nellie tries to play him every minute again, this will be the game that we start seeing fatigue play a factor, IMO. And every time he tries to continue to employ this strategy, it will only get more severe.

There's a reason that players don't play every minute of every game any more - they aren't conditioned to do so. Nowitzki is used to playing 39 MPG. He can easily play a game or maybe two without a break, but he'll really start to feel it tonight. I just hope that the Blazers can take advantage of it.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it's not about running. it's the pick and rolls.

when Dallas runs it, Sheed often jumps out, causing a switch. so Damon is left guarding Dirk. So somebody else needs to double down on Dirk because our PG obviously isn't qualified. (Ah, Scottie, how we miss you.) Davis is better than Sabas at doubling quickly, and even if he isn't the guy doubling down, he's helping to cover two other people as somebody else doubles dirk. 

I think the main reason we aren't using sabas is that Cheeks is worried he's not fast enough to help recover on pick and rolls, so he's using Dale to rotate more quickly to try to recover. 

the thing is that Dale's ability to move quickly on defense is irrelevant, because Nash and Nowitzki are scoring like it's going out of style.

maybe we just need to zone Sabas in the middle more so he can be quicker on help defense. it'll leave Bradley and Raef open, but I'd rather see those guys shoot 20 times even at short range than Dirk and Nash continue to score at will. 

If we use Daniels, Bonzi and Ruben for perimeter defense, Sabas is a nice complement at point center. If they continue to front Sabas, it'll open up lanes for those three to slash.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Wank,

Please tell that to Mr. Cheeks. 

Thanks!

CFFI


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

HA! the person singing the national anthem forgot the words, and Maurice cheeks came out and sang with her to help her remember the words.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*Not a good start.....*

14-4 Dallas.

Ouch.

:no:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Hahahahahha*

Well I guess if you are going to stink it up, you might as well stink as bad as you can.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Its funny*

Every time Bonzi misses his first shot of the game, he absolutely struggles the rest of the game. Every stinking time. This will probably be another one of those games where he follows up a great game with a 9 points on 3 of 11 shooting night.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*Hey Mo!!!!*

Is it time to change your strategy yet?????


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Hey they finally put the Big ones in there!*

Hey they finally put Sabonis, Wallace and Zbo in at the same time, and amazingly enough, it seems to be having an effect...is it in time?


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

*Re: Hey they finally put the Big ones in there!*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> Hey they finally put Sabonis, Wallace and Zbo in at the same time, and amazingly enough, it seems to be having an effect...is it in time?


Probably not, but who knows. I hope so, I don't want to see Portland go down 3-0.:no:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Why did Cheeks take Randolph out*

Why the farg did Cheeks just take Randolph out and put Bonzi back in? What the hell?


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*Sabonis*

Five minutes of play: 
8 pts on 4/4 shooting, 2 reb, 1 steal, 1 TO, 3 PF.

That's all we'll see of him tonight.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Continually*

We continually see the issue of Cheeks yanking hot combinations out of the game. Sabonis has more minutes in him, Zach was doing great. So they pull them out for what reason? They had only played a few minutes and made a major dent in the lead, if not threatening to take it back. Its not bad enough that its hard to find good combinations with this team, but then he yanks them just when they have things rolling.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Is Patterson the only one who came to play tonight?


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

Sabas was pulled because of his 3 fouls. 

He is playing aggressively. And why not???? 

He is only getting a few minutes of PT in this series. Might as well try to block every shot. If fouls are called, so what? 

It's hard to foul out in 6 minutes. Even if he does DQ......No big deal. He wouldn't be used much more than that anyway.

CFFI
(Cynical Fan From Idaho)


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

Agreed. Sabonis has got to come out strong and make an impact. It's not like he's putting 35 minutes a game up anyway.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Sabonis did a good job offensively, but on the boards he was being pushed around by Najera and his slow feet gave the Mavs a lot of easier scoring chances than they should have had.

Of course, he's not alone in either of those last two regards 

I hope that Sabas gets another chance in the second half so he can control the glass and keep attacking the rim offensively!

Ed O.


----------



## Crazy Fan From Idaho (Dec 31, 2002)

*Pushed around on the boards by Najera?*

I'm not watching the game, so I can't dispute what you are seeing. However, according to the log Mavs only got two rebounds during the period when Sabonis played: one by Najera and one by Nowitzki. Of course there were only 7 rebounds during that time total.

Sabonis must have been challenging the Mavs at the rim to get those three shooting fouls. At least they were decent enough fouls to make the attempts misses and not 3 pt opportunities.

Ah, enough of this.....Here's the 2nd half.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

*A few things*

How can we come out from the break and look lost?

What were they doing during half time? Did Damon brought his lunch box?

Could someone hit Walton on the head?

This guy plain Annoying. I rather have diarrhea for a week than listen to him another minute.
:upset: :upset: :upset:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The worst thing about Walton was his opening in the second half... something to the effect of:

"Dallas is outshooting the Blazers, they're outhustling the Blazers, they're outsmarting the Blazers."

The Blazers were down by 3 at the time, in spite of Dallas only having 3 turnovers and shooting over 50% from 3 point range (neither of which are generally sustainable and while they are partially the result of the respective efforts of the teams, they're also lucky to some extent).

Oh, well...

Ed O.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

NO MAS DAMON! horrible defender:yes:


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

PLAY SOME EFFIN' DEFENSE!


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

#(*$*@)#(*[email protected]#)(@#*$(@#*$)@~!

Yeah...#*@U$)@(*[email protected])#(~!

ARRRGH...


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

Why doesn't McInnis get in the game. Stoudamire has played the ENTIRE 2nd half practically. A JOKE. GET THAT BUM OUT OF PORTLAND. UTTERLY REDICULOUS. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I HAVE BEEN MORE PISSED AT A BASKETBALL GAME.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Yep and*

Bonzi and Rasheed sure were "SPECIAL" players tonight weren't they. As I have said time and time again, this team is over rated. At least we can look forward to one thing, chances are there will be some rebuilding in the next few years, and if we are lucky, a philosophy change in the way the team is built. It wouldn't matter which PG was in, all of our PG suck. Our best PG is on the IR, and is a SF playing out of position. Its time to rebuild peeps.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Damon waits till like 13 seconds before he makes his initial pass.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

dare we win on sunday? dare we gasp a last breath?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Very frustrating. The sad thing is that Damon was the only one able to create a shot from the perimeter, so the team almost HAD to continue to use him.

With that said, Damon was terrible. He double-clutched almost every pass he made, and he was his regular defensive liability at the other end.

Bonzi and Wallace were each disappointing to me, as well. Maybe others will be less disappointed because they expect less of them at this stage, but both Wells and Wallace each had at least one point where they just made STUPID fouls... I just don't understand how they can't understand that they're going to be in foul trouble EVENTUALLY if they give fouls away in the first half.

That doesn't even touch upon their offensive effort. Wells obviously wasn't on from the perimeter tonight, but to his credit he attacked the basket repeatedly and got to the line in the first half. With that said, he just missed too many easy shots (he should have had at least 2 three point plays, but he missed layups after absorbing contact) and didn't take people off of the dribble enough in the second half.

Wallace, on the other hand, was floating all night, and I think that was a combo of him and Damon's utter inability to make a post-entry pass. Having Wallace playing the high post in an offensive set was just a horrible idea: Wallace isn't a good enough passer to make consistently good interior passes. His defense was MAYBE his most disappointing aspect to me tonight; he wasn't even guarding Dirk much, but he just kept fouling people.

Overall, very bad game for the Blazers. It started off poorly with the home crowd BOOING halfway through the first quarter (have they even ever done that in Philly?), and it got worse in the fourth quarter. Looks like my prediction of Blazers in 6 is officially wrong now 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Yep and*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> Bonzi and Rasheed sure were "SPECIAL" players tonight weren't they. As I have said time and time again, this team is over rated. At least we can look forward to one thing, chances are there will be some rebuilding in the next few years, and if we are lucky, a philosophy change in the way the team is built. It wouldn't matter which PG was in, all of our PG suck. Our best PG is on the IR, and is a SF playing out of position. Its time to rebuild peeps.


They are playing a team that won *SIXTY* games this year. It's not like they're playing the Clippers (or, more playoff-appropriately: the Magic or Celtics).

I fail to see how are the Blazers overrated. They won 50 games. Was that just NBA hype?

I agree about the PG situation, but not about rebuilding. Plug Gary Payton in there instead of Damon and the Blazers are an entirely different team. And a heck of a lot better.

Ed O.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Yep and*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> They are playing a team that won *SIXTY* games this year. It's not like they're playing the Clippers (or, more playoff-appropriately: the Magic or Celtics).
> ...


you can't MAKE wallace and bonzi care by 'plugging in' GP.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> dare we win on sunday? dare we gasp a last breath?


Heck, yeah! We're still in a situation where we [cliche] need to take it one game at a time.[/cliche]

Will the Blazers win 4 straight? Almost certainly not. Will winning a game or two make me feel better about things? Sure, a little bit.

And if they win on Sunday, it goes back to Dallas. One upset in Dallas, and it comes back to Portland. THEN it gets interesting.



Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Yep and*



> Originally posted by <b>tblazrdude</b>!
> 
> you can't MAKE wallace and bonzi care by 'plugging in' GP.


Why do they need to "care" more? If they produce at a similar level but we get some actual production out of our weaker spots, Portland wins at LEAST one of these three games.

With Payton, Wallace becomes our second-best player, and Wells our third-best. Payton is a much better penetrator and finisher than Damon, and understands how to make an entry pass. That would make Wallace and Wells (along with whomever else is on the floor) better. And that's not even mentioning the other end of the floor (defense).

It's the same reason we're better when Pippen's on the floor, but Payton's much better than Pippen.

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

If we win a game, Whitsett might think we need another year with the same team. God please don't give us these knuckleheads again.


----------



## Beaverton (Apr 17, 2003)

The Solution is to sit Damon down. He doesn't even know where he's passing to. It looks like he's playing street ball. He gets the ball, passes to a wing, passes back to Damon. He holds it, he drives and passes it to whoever's open around him.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peaceman</b>!
> If we win a game, Whitsett might think we need another year with the same team. God please don't give us these knuckleheads again.


The Pistons are lucky you're not in charge of what Dumars will do with his team next year.

After all, they're looking likely to lose to an 8 seed. It makes the Blazers' struggles (as painful as they are) look mild to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> The Pistons are lucky you're not in charge of what Dumars will do with his team next year.
> ...



The East is so weak. Phoenix would probably we a 1 or 2 out there. Even id Detroit loses, it won't make me feel better.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Re: Yep and*



> Originally posted by <b>Ed O</b>!
> 
> 
> They are playing a team that won *SIXTY* games this year. It's not like they're playing the Clippers (or, more playoff-appropriately: the Magic or Celtics).
> ...



Its called having 1/3 your schedule against the eastern conference, if not a little more then that. Also noted is the point at which Scottie went down with injury, which definitly still hurts Portland in the series. But as I have said, you cannot count on Scottie to be there anymore, his mind is willing, his body is not. Just because you are playing a team that won sixty games this year is not a reason to at least win a game in the playoffs, let alone not win a game in the playoffs the last 3 years. No excuses for that. Portland showed down the stretch of the season they were going to fold, and it shows. They need to build a taller, faster team to be tough again. Right now they are a team of players playing out of position with bad matchups all over the place, and too much depth with not enough impact. Special players are the players who find a way every night to get their points and make their plays, CONSISTENTLY. Portland has none. 44 one night, 15 points on 3 of 16 shooting the next? That says "Bench player" to me. He has done that all year long. Your starting unit should be dependable, and, a level of intensity higher then your bench unit. Portland does not have that, oftentimes their bench is more intense then the starting unit. The only thing Portland has going for them at all is everybody seems to think they are so talented. They are so wrong.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Yep and*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> 
> Its called having 1/3 your schedule against the eastern conference, if not a little more then that.


So who are the other teams in the West playing? You make it sound like Portland has an easier schedule than everyone else, so their 50 wins are somehow lessened. It seems to me if you think the Blazers suck, they should have a TOUGHER schedule, since they don't have to play themselves (whereas the "good" teams do get to play Portland).



> Also noted is the point at which Scottie went down with injury, which definitly still hurts Portland in the series. But as I have said, you cannot count on Scottie to be there anymore, his mind is willing, his body is not. Just because you are playing a team that won sixty games this year is not a reason to at least win a game in the playoffs, let alone not win a game in the playoffs the last 3 years. No excuses for that. Portland showed down the stretch of the season they were going to fold, and it shows.


They still have a chance to win a game or even more. I fail to see that it REALLY matters whether they win 1 or 2 or 0. Getting to a game 7 could have SOME value to me as a fan (even a loss) but losing in 6 is just as bad as getting swept to me long-term.



> They need to build a taller, faster team to be tough again. Right now they are a team of players playing out of position with bad matchups all over the place, and too much depth with not enough impact. Special players are the players who find a way every night to get their points and make their plays, CONSISTENTLY. Portland has none. 44 one night, 15 points on 3 of 16 shooting the next? That says "Bench player" to me.


That's ridiculous. I would bet that no bench player in NBA playoff history has ever scored 45 (NOT 44, as you keep incorrectly stating). You're either being disingenuous or you're simply not paying attention to reality.

Getting 15 points on 16 shots is not bad, actually. Missing 13 shots sucks, but Bonzi continually attacked the basket (in the first three quarters) and helped keep Portland in the game because of it. He also had 8 boards and 6 assists. For the series, Wells has scored 73 points on 55 shots. That's a "bench player" to you?

Finley scored 10 on 12 shots tonight with no rebounds... maybe he should be coming off of the bench for the Mavs? If not, why not?



> He has done that all year long. Your starting unit should be dependable, and, a level of intensity higher then your bench unit. Portland does not have that, oftentimes their bench is more intense then the starting unit. The only thing Portland has going for them at all is everybody seems to think they are so talented. They are so wrong.


You have higher expectations than I do, and you feel that you need to denigrate the team for not living up to your (IMO) impossible standards. That's cool. But it's pretty meaningless to me when you don't compare the Blazers to what most other teams and players are doing in the NBA.

Ed O.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Trade Wallace!! He played like he didn't care ! He was probably thinking about the vacation he has planned next week :upset:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

*As I have said before Ed*

Willie Burton put down 56 for Miami once, and was out of the league 2 years later. He was a bench player. Vinnie Johnson used to torch teams for the Deteroit Pistons with huge output in games off the bench, I know he broke 40 a few times. He was just like Bonzi, Lights on, Lights off. And last but not least, what does the rest of the western conference and what they did against the eastern conference have to do with the Blazers record? The fact of the matter is, you get to play 34 games against eastern conference opponents, and chances are if you are a western conference team, you are going to win a majority of those games. That is going to get you a long way towards 50 wins. The only reason that some of those teams in the east get close to 50 wins is because they get to play teams like Cleveland 4 or 5 times a year. With 34 games out of the schedule, and say you only win 75% of your games against the east, you only have to play .500 ball in the western conference to win 50 games. 50 games is NOTHING. Evidently, 50 games means you are good enough to get swept out of the playoffs in the first round 3 years in a row. Especially when you consider, that Portland gets to play teams like Golden State, LA Clippers, Denver (who gave Portland black eyes twice, that should have been a sign), Memphis and Seattle, (That is another 20 games against crummy teams which are a lot of extra wins). 50 games is nothing. Its when you get good enough that you cram another 10 wins against quality opponents, that your team is indeed, good. Its only when you have consistent players, who bring it every night, that you can beat those teams on a regular basis. Basically every time Portland has to play a good team, they have to "Grab their ankles" and pray to the basketball gods that they are going to have a good enough night to win. Then when the playoffs show up, and those teams take it up a notch, Portland dissappears in a blast of mediocrity, because they show up to the game and have to wonder "Who the hell is going to show up tonight to keep us in this game." Well some nights, nobody shows up. Some nights, a player shows up for a quarter or two. Some nights a player like Bonzi go's off for 44. The next night he shoots 3 for 16 against the same EXACT TEAM. Some players like Wallace just dissappear in a whirl of fouls. Did you every watch Clyde Drexler? Every night in his career he brought it. If he had a bad night, it was 22 points. If he had a good night, 50 plus. But every night he came to go to war. That is what a quality player is. They bring it night in, night out, and scare you to death. Dirk Nowitzki is one of those players. The Blazers have none.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

*Re: As I have said before Ed*



> Originally posted by <b>hasoos</b>!
> Willie Burton put down 56 for Miami once, and was out of the league 2 years later. He was a bench player.


You either don't read or don't remember very well. He had 53 points. He scored those points for Philadelphia. He did not have those points in the playoffs.

Facts being correct are crucial to a debate, it seems to me.



> Vinnie Johnson used to torch teams for the Deteroit Pistons with huge output in games off the bench, I know he broke 40 a few times. He was just like Bonzi, Lights on, Lights off.


You use one of the greatest bench players of all time as the standard for "bench player"? Why not use McHale as a 6th man as an argument to move Wallace to the bench?



> And last but not least, what does the rest of the western conference and what they did against the eastern conference have to do with the Blazers record? The fact of the matter is, you get to play 34 games against eastern conference opponents, and chances are if you are a western conference team, you are going to win a majority of those games. That is going to get you a long way towards 50 wins.
> 
> [big snip]


Your point is meaningless. Portland won 50 games. More than all but 5 other teams in the NBA (6, but they're better than the Pistons). Who cares how they got those wins? They still were better than 75% of the league.



> Its when you get good enough that you cram another 10 wins against quality opponents, that your team is indeed, good.


Ah. So only the Spurs and Kings are good, huh? Those are the only two teams that won 60 this year, and they BARELY got there. Imagine if the league had gone without any good teams this year. That would have been weird.

Or you coulda just pulled another definition of a "good" team out of thin air to support your opinions.



> Its only when you have consistent players, who bring it every night, that you can beat those teams on a regular basis.


I have an issue with this logic. If only 2 teams have the ability to beat those two teams on a consistent basis, why do the Spurs and Mavs only have 60 wins? Do they play each other 40 times and split, or what?



> Basically every time Portland has to play a good team, they have to "Grab their ankles" and pray to the basketball gods that they are going to have a good enough night to win. Then when the playoffs show up, and those teams take it up a notch, Portland dissappears in a blast of mediocrity, because they show up to the game and have to wonder "Who the hell is going to show up tonight to keep us in this game." Well some nights, nobody shows up. Some nights, a player shows up for a quarter or two. Some nights a player like Bonzi go's off for 44. The next night he shoots 3 for 16 against the same EXACT TEAM.


Your idea of consistency is an inconsistent fiction. Dirk only had 25 points (missing 17 shots... more than Bonzi!) in game 2, sandwiched by over-40's. Guess he's not consistent, eh?



> Some players like Wallace just dissappear in a whirl of fouls. Did you every watch Clyde Drexler?


Clyde who? 



> Every night in his career he brought it. If he had a bad night, it was 22 points. If he had a good night, 50 plus. But every night he came to go to war. That is what a quality player is.


I'm sorry to say: that's ignorant. Clyde *averaged* 20.4 ppg in his career. There's no way that a "bad" night was only 22 points. He also never scored more than 41 points in the playoffs. Once again, you're just making stuff up to support your opinions.



> They bring it night in, night out, and scare you to death. Dirk Nowitzki is one of those players. The Blazers have none.


Guess what? If you make a bunch of stuff up, it's easy to "justify" any viewpoint and act like it's logical.

Ed O.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

Last night, I really only had an issue with one player - Wallace.

Bonzi had a bad game but at least he tried to take it inside several times. The effort was there.

Damon (for the record, I'd still trade him for a bag of peanuts) didn't necessarily play smart but I really felt like he tried hard. He's just too small to play any sort of a zone or switching defense against a team like the Mavs..

Zbo played fine. He's still a little overwhelmed by the playoffs I think but played hard and kept several balls alive.

Sabas was great. A real difference maker. It would be interesting to see the point differential while he was on the court.

Wallace was the only real disappointment. Most of the game he just kind of loped around. He didn't play any defense at all on Nowitski. There was a sequence in the second half where Dirk started rolling and after several points, the very next play found Dirk wide open on the left baseline with Wallace lost in the key!

Um Mr. Wallace, let me introduce Mr. Nowitski. He shoots threes.

My opinion is that without Pippen, the only way the Blazers were going to stand a chance was if Wallace brought the same attitude he had against the Lakers last year. Apparently he's already on summer vacation.


----------

