# Jason Quick basically says what i did. THIS TEAM IS AWFUL. Link



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

I will let you read this article and make your own judgements but Nash better be on teh phone today unless he wants to win under 5 games this year and tahts being nice about it. Nate also was begging for help in post game interview. You guys are great fans....how can you not see this?


http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/sports/112972007875620.xml&coll=7


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

For Quick to say that the Blazers are on the "precipice of disaster" after three exhibition games and having a new coach is outrageous hyperbole. 
and although i'm ususally a big fan of Ruben's maybe he should just keep his mouth shut and figure out how to shoot better than 1 for 8!


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

patience grasshopper..... it is awlful... very bad

I liked the comparison in one of the articles yesterday.... we maybe able to compete for the colllege championship

we are a long ways away from competing on the nba level... we are way too young.. no experience... we are being thrown to the wolves...


side note: How long before Ruben demands to be traded? is he frustrated already?


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Spurs are 0-5 in the preseason. They need help big time also..


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

What do you think you are, mixum? A seer? A genius? You think the rest of us can't see that the team is struggling? Stop pointing out the obvious, for god's sake.

None of us ever said this team was going to be great. In fact, most people around here have said there will be a lot of losing this year. The difference between you and us is that we can see that the future is bright, whereas you are constantly screaming that the sky is falling. 

Get a grip, would you?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Mixum: You are correct "this team is awful" by NBA standards.

However, *this is the team*. Mgmt has already made the decision to go into the season with this coach and these players. Please get used to it and get on with your other hobbies.

We WILL suck this season. Hopefully (glass of koolaid - half full), by February, March and April we'll see signs of improvement and competitiveness on the court and resulting in W's.

PS - Blazers will win more than 5 games. They may not break 20 - but they'll have more than 5.

Go Baby Blazers!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

we had the third pick in the lotto last year. 

our biggest summer FA acquisition is Juan Dixon. 

the average age of our team is 24. 

our best player is recovering from microfracture surgery. 

our starting PG was at his senior prom a year and a half ago. 

we lost Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire, Derek Anderson, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Nick Van Exel and only have a crummy first rounder and Theo Ratliff to show for it. 

we'd need a ladder just to get back to the precipice. a tall ladder.


----------



## Harry_Minge (Oct 4, 2005)

theWanker said:


> we lost Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire, Derek Anderson, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Nick Van Exel and only have a crummy first rounder and Theo Ratliff to show for it.
> 
> we'd need a ladder just to get back to the precipice. a tall ladder.


hey wanker,great post,great points

LOL


----------



## MercyKersey (Jul 22, 2003)

Does anyone care what Quick thinks? Possibly the worst sports reporter on the planet.. :rocket:


----------



## BealzeeBob (Jan 6, 2003)

Mix, you must be having a bad day, Dude. Throwing in with Quick? ugh! Does this mean that you're a Damon fan now?

Cheer up. The team will be bad for a while, allowing you to revel in their terribilocity. I trust you'll keep us informed of how badly the team is doing.

Go Blazers


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Scout226 said:


> Spurs are 0-5 in the preseason. They need help big time also..


:clap: 

Guys like mixum cant see past the now, they cant see the big picture/future. My youngest son is 2 years old, he cant ride a bike yet or dunk a basketball, I guess he's doomed! He'll never learn if he hasnt learned it yet!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Yeah, good thing I didn't think like that when the kittens pooped on the floor! Omigod, 8 weeks old and not box trained! We are doomed!
(they are now box trained, it took one day; learning the NBA may take a bit longer but is hardly hopeless)


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Guys like mixum cant see past the now, they cant see the big picture/future. My youngest son is 2 years old, he cant ride a bike yet or dunk a basketball, I guess he's doomed! He'll never learn if he hasnt learned it yet!


Could he ride a bike or dunk a basketball three years ago?

A child is almost always going to learn and grow, while bad NBA teams are more likely to remain bad NBA teams than they are to get good.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> :clap:
> 
> Guys like mixum cant see past the now, they cant see the big picture/future. My youngest son is 2 years old, he cant ride a bike yet or dunk a basketball, I guess he's doomed! He'll never learn if he hasnt learned it yet!


ha! your son is never going to do anything worthwhile. you should just get rid of him. the sooner you realize that, the better.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Could he ride a bike or dunk a basketball three years ago?
> 
> A child is almost always going to learn and grow, while bad NBA teams are more likely to remain bad NBA teams than they are to get good.
> 
> Ed O.


say you have an older child, who was a dingbat. Sure, he could ride a bike or dunk, but he also would piss on the toilet seat, fart in church, kick dogs, and treated you (his parents) like crap.

ANd then you have a newborn son (or daughter)..do you always compare what your newborn child did to what your older child did? What if by age 2 your older child was potty trained..and your new child isn't.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Could he ride a bike or dunk a basketball three years ago?
> 
> A child is almost always going to learn and grow, while bad NBA teams are more likely to remain bad NBA teams than they are to get good.
> 
> Ed O.


Young NBA players cant learn and grow?


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

are you serioulsy comparing what your kid can or cant do to this group of losers we call a basketball team? Even if tehy get better which is iffy....we wont compete for years with this group....years like maybe 5-6 and by then they will be free agents.

dude......nash doesnt drfat good players.....he drfats guys who MIGHT be good...its just too bad they never pan out. Until Nash is fired...we will suck.


Im telling ya if a trade is not made......this will be the biggest embarrassment in blazers history.

We have to get a legit guard ASAP. I thimk telfair can succeed IF IF IF IF IF he has a real SG next to him but putting any of the guys we have now next to bassy is just a joke.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mixum said:


> are you serioulsy comparing what your kid can or cant do to this group of losers we call a basketball team? Even if tehy get better which is iffy....we wont compete for years with this group....years like maybe 5-6 and by then they will be free agents.
> 
> dude......nash doesnt drfat good players.....he drfats guys who MIGHT be good...its just too bad they never pan out. Until Nash is fired...we will suck.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Young NBA players cant learn and grow?


Who said that? Children DO learn and grow, except in the most unfortunate circumstances. Most of them don't learn string theory or grow up to dunk a basketball, though.

Young NBA players and teams DO learn and grow, except in some circumstances (which is a higher rate than for children). Most of them don't evolve into all-star caliber players or championship contending teams, though.

Some people on this board might believe that there is zero percent chance that this team evolves into a contender. I am not one of them. 

Some people on this board seem to think that because we're bad and young we're naturally going to improve to a level that is better than where we were before we got rid of our good players. I am not one of them.

This team is a gamble, and looking at the pieces I think it's a losing one. It doesn't mean it won't pay off down the road, but I find it unlikely.

Eventually, of course, the Blazers will be decent and even good again. But I doubt it will be because of the moves we have made the past two years... it will probably be in spite of them. The Bulls are decent now... but was it because they traded away Brand, and Miller, and Artest? No. It's in SPITE of it.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mixum said:


> are you serioulsy comparing what your kid can or cant do to this group of losers we call a basketball team? Even if tehy get better which is iffy....we wont compete for years with this group....years like maybe 5-6 and by then they will be free agents.
> 
> dude......nash doesnt drfat good players.....he drfats guys who MIGHT be good...its just too bad they never pan out. Until Nash is fired...we will suck.
> 
> ...


so..who should he have drafted that was a good player? because outside of the top few picks in the 04 draft, there hasn't been a "good" player drafted right off the block...

oh wait, thats right..you're just complainin.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

mixum said:


> dude......nash doesnt drfat good players.....he drfats guys who MIGHT be good...its just too bad they never pan out. Until Nash is fired...we will suck.


Hi, welcome to the NBA draft. _Everyone_ drafts players who *might* be good. There are very few sure things in the draft, and I don't think this draft had any. Whether Nash has done a good job drafting or not is something we won't know for at least a couple more years. Patience.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Yes, mixum. The Blazers are going to be quite "bad" this season (win-loss wise). We all see it, and have seen it for some time. You're not any smarter or more observant than any of the rest of us.

My advice: Roll up your sleeves, hitch up your belt, and get ready for a rough & tumble season for the Blazers. Then you'll be on the same page as the rest of us.

PBF


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

To say bad teams just stay bad is absurd. Remember when the Dallas Mavericks were challenging the worst record in NBA history? They've been pretty good the past few years. Remember the Kings with their long long string of 20 win seasons? How about Orlando? In the past 12 years or so they've gone from terrible to respectable to contenders to respectable to terrible to halfway decent. The Bulls went from superlative to awful to decent in a few years. 
While it's true that the Clippers have been consistently bad, the reason is not that they never draft well but that the owner won't spend, so they let young players go, don't even try to sign FA's, don't make trades because cheap is the top priority. 
Frankly, while I think you are right in your assessment, PBF, you are wrong in one thing: some people whom I won't name are happy to see this team bad. I'm sure if the Blazers exceed expectation it will be a serious blow to a couple on this board.
An equivalent poster on a Cleveland board would say LeBron James sucks, the Cavs have been in the lottery both years he's been there, the GM can't draft talent, the team is awful and will always be awful and to think Larry Hughes will make a difference is a joke and he is awful and they will always be awful and I'm glad they are awful and they all suck. (Except spelled badly.)


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Oh joy...here come the Blazer Boo Birds.....led by their illustrious leaders Mixum and EdO (where is tlong to complete the triumviate?)

Mixum, want to bet POR wins more than 5 games this year? $20? $50? Nut up to your post buddy....

Ruben should just shut his piehole...The guy goes 1-8 and then has the balls to blame everyone else but himself? ...there is your "veteran" leadership for ya...SOOOOO glad to have that guy on our team....The FIRST guy who should go is that dip****

Here is a newsflash for some of you...um Denver...they are going to be pretty good...and the Clips? Um...they too are going to be better than they were last year....Judging from Ruben's comments...you would have thought POR lost by 30 to ther Clips....Not by 14

THE SINGLE DUMBEST THING POR could do is take Mixum's advice....PANIC...and start trading away young players for MEDIOCRE veterans in order to win 5-10 more games...THAT would Moronic...but SOME posters are to blind to see it....

Besides.....

POR is 1-2 in PRE-SEASON....PRE-season?...Are we talking about the PRE-season? Not the regular season which players (EDIT - allegedly) live and die for...But the PRE-Season? I know it is important...I honestly do....but PRE-season? Now we are talking about the PRE-Season? 

Come down from that ledge Mixum...It isn't even 8:15 am yet.....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> To say bad teams just stay bad is absurd. Remember when the Dallas Mavericks were challenging the worst record in NBA history? They've been pretty good the past few years. Remember the Kings with their long long string of 20 win seasons? How about Orlando? In the past 12 years or so they've gone from terrible to respectable to contenders to respectable to terrible to halfway decent. The Bulls went from superlative to awful to decent in a few years.
> While it's true that the Clippers have been consistently bad, the reason is not that they never draft well but that the owner won't spend, so they let young players go, don't even try to sign FA's, don't make trades because cheap is the top priority.
> Frankly, while I think you are right in your assessment, PBF, you are wrong in one thing: some people whom I won't name are happy to see this team bad. I'm sure if the Blazers exceed expectation it will be a serious blow to a couple on this board.
> An equivalent poster on a Cleveland board would say LeBron James sucks, the Cavs have been in the lottery both years he's been there, the GM can't draft talent, the team is awful and will always be awful and to think Larry Hughes will make a difference is a joke and he is awful and they will always be awful and I'm glad they are awful and they all suck. (Except spelled badly.)



cake lady for president!


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Panicking in the pre season. Beyond hilarious.

At this rate, we'll have 10 blazer related suicides by January.

Get a grip. Every one. Ruben, Quick, Mix, et al.....this is seriously pathetic.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

> Nobody expected this young Blazers team to wow the league off the bat, but nobody -- the players included -- expected struggles of this magnitude.


Heck, I certainly did. This is a horrible team. We have *NO * inside game which puts even more pressure on the poor shooters we have on the perimeter.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Talkhard said:


> What do you think you are, mixum? A seer? A genius? You think the rest of us can't see that the team is struggling? Stop pointing out the obvious, for god's sake.
> 
> None of us ever said this team was going to be great. In fact, most people around here have said there will be a lot of losing this year. The difference between you and us is that we can see that the future is bright, whereas you are constantly screaming that the sky is falling.
> 
> Get a grip, would you?


 :clap:


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> Come down from that ledge Mixum...It isn't even 8:15 am yet.....


No, no, move a little closer. And take Ruben with you. 

Just kidding mixum :biggrin: But not about Ruben.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

although I'm pretty glum about the disaster our team is in, at this point I don't think trading anyone is likely to happen (nor should it), except for Patterson. trading Ruben wouldn't really be a panic move but really just a recognition that his value is higher than it likely will ever be again. 

this is a little like Iraq. I wasn't a big fan of the idea. I've hated our execution. but here we are and maybe I've been wrong all along and maybe things really can work out. I'm really just hoping for the best at this point.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Oh joy...here come the Blazer Boo Birds.....led by their illustrious leaders Mixum and EdO (where is tlong to complete the triumviate?)


Where are all the people who think that Nash is doing a great job?

Where are all the people who said that Telfair is an improved shooter?

Where are all the people who argued that Dixon was a good addition?

Where are all the people who said that Joel wasn't injury prone?

Or that Zach was fully healthy from his surgery?

Or that the team would be fine without veterans?

Or that Nate would make help us improve over last year in terms of wins and losses?

If people still believe any or all of this, that's cool. It's early in the preseason and things can change. But ripping the people who are being proven correct now that the team is on the floor seems misguided.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> THE SINGLE DUMBEST THING POR could do is take Mixum's idiotic advice....PANIC...and start trading away young players for MEDIOCRE veterans in order to win 5-10 more games...THAT would Moronic...but SOME posters are to blind to see it....


I disagreed with one statement, but I agree with this one. I don't think we should panic. I don't think that we should make a move NOW to win a few more games. I'm not calling for trades at this point because we're too bad for anything realistic to make a difference.

But that doesn't mean that Nash isn't at fault for building such a ****ty team. Not just in terms of lack of overall talent but a poor match of position players and few veterans.

If we can make it through this season WITHOUT making a panic move, I will consider it a success based on where we are right now. If we make a panic move (like we did with Bonzi) it will only hurt us in the long run once again.

And Nash has set himself up for a panic move. It's easy for fans and management and the new coach to preach patience and to try to lower expectations, but if the team starts to really lose a lot and the fans start to boo at home games at the drop of a hat and if players are complaining... I'm afraid the team's going to try to go for a bandaid. And that would almost certainly be bad.

I hope that management and ownership and Nate are _really_ committed to sticking this out this year. I really do.

In the mean time, though, I'm not going to sugarcoat how bad this team is. I'm not going to ignore that steps that Nash has taken to get us here. I'm not going to treat the future of this team as if it were preordained that Portland is going to get back into the playoffs with this group of guys in the future.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Where are all the people who think that Nash is doing a great job?

-- Great job? No.. Decent? Yes.

Where are all the people who said that Telfair is an improved shooter?

-- Not sure. I haven't seen any games here in AZ. A few bad games in preseason doesn't worry me.

Where are all the people who argued that Dixon was a good addition?

-- Good Addition? No.. I thought it was ok, but not necessary.

Where are all the people who said that Joel wasn't injury prone?

-- Not a worry for me.. Theo and his large *** contract is a worry though.

Or that Zach was fully healthy from his surgery?

-- No one knows this.

Or that the team would be fine without veterans?

-- The team would be better without one certain vet on the team.

Or that Nate would make help us improve over last year in terms of wins and losses?

-- He may not improve the w/l record this year. But he is a HUGE improvement over Cheeks.




> If people still believe any or all of this, that's cool. It's early in the preseason and things can change. But ripping the people who are being proven correct now that the team is on the floor seems misguided.


Judging everything on the preseason is ridiculous. Saying Mixum has been proven correct is the farthest from the truth. It's doom and gloom 100% of the time for him. I think the frustration on this board is the team isn't performing very good IN PRESEASON, and one or two negative people who like to post about it 100 times. 

We need to forget about this game and chuck it in the trash. They are going to have a few, or a lot, this year. Don't jump off the nearest bridge after each one.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Scout226 said:


> Judging everything on the preseason is ridiculous. Saying Mixum has been proven correct is the farthest from the truth.


You changed my conjugation. I said "are being proven" not "have been proven". It's an open question, but all signs point to mixum's comments having more truth to them than many others on the board.

And I'm not just defending mixum. Notice that tlong and I were lumped in there, too.



> It's doom and gloom 100% of the time for him. I think the frustration on this board is the team isn't performing very good IN PRESEASON, and one or two negative people who like to post about it 100 times.


I can't speak to why people are frustrated at other posters, but did you expect that the team was going to lose and nobody was going to say anything about it? Or did you expect the team not to lose like it is?



> We need to forget about this game and chuck it in the trash. They are going to have a few, or a lot, this year. Don't jump off the nearest bridge after each one.


I'm not that upset about this one game, but it's emblematic of a bad team. In the grand scheme of things (i.e., life) I'm not even that upset about rooting for a bad team. But a bad team is a bad team and those of us who are frustrated at the direction of the team (and have been for some time) shouldn't have to keep a lid on it just because some others want us to.

Ed O.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You changed my conjugation. I said "are being proven" not "have been proven". It's an open question, but all signs point to mixum's comments having more truth to them than many others on the board.


What comments are being proven Ed O? That Telfair is going to end up as a streetball player? That Jack is going to start the beginning of the season? That Martell won't be as good as Deron Williams? Which one of those are being proven to us right now? It's easy to have a 100 comments and have one or two of them end up being true but your lame attempt at trying to get fans off Mixum's back is quite sad.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

I still can't belive the paranoia that's taken over the rapidly dissolving Blazer nation.

Ever since Mo was given the boot, the company line has been, "be patient." That doesn't mean "be patient for a few weeks or months." Who in their right mind thought we would see a Seattle or Phoenix-like resurgance in the span of seven or eight months?

When Nash and McMillan say, "it'll take time," that's exactly what they mean. The Blazers have FINALLY dropped the malcontents and grumpy veterans; now, it's grooming the current roster for the future and letting them play together to create some chemistry.

Sure, the shooters have been pretty awful so far, but without a real rotation and flucuating playing time for each player, how can the good lot of our roster get into a groove when their minutes are all over the place?

I'm not going to call for Nash's head ... yet. What did you all realistically expect? As it stands, we have about the youngest team in the NBA; they're YOUNG and young players MAKE MISTAKES. Nate's only had the team together for about three weeks now ... what were your expectations at this point?

Things will get better, and probably sooner rather than later. As we get into November and December and Nate is realizing each player's strengths and weaknesses, he will establish a rotation and really tighten the screws - really important since he has management's backing.

Alright, we lost to the Clippers, who are traditionally abysmal. We only committed 9 turnovers and were only out-rebounded by 2 with one of our top rebounders on a bad knee and the other on the bench.

It's the pre-season ... with a new coach ... a new-look team ... unfortunate injuries (Zach and Joel, namely) and no discernable rotation. Let's not panic just yet.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Where are all the people who think that Nash is doing a great job?
> 
> Where are all the people who said that Telfair is an improved shooter?
> 
> ...


No one has been proven correct or incorrect yet. It's the FRIGGIN PRE SEASON!!


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

wastro said:


> I still can't belive the paranoia that's taken over the rapidly dissolving Blazer nation.
> 
> Ever since Mo was given the boot, the company line has been, "be patient." That doesn't mean "be patient for a few weeks or months." Who in their right mind thought we would see a Seattle or Phoenix-like resurgance in the span of seven or eight months?
> 
> ...



That's the thing. The naysayers haven't given the Blazers ANY time to prove ANYTHING! This is truely amazing! Nate doesn't even know who the starting 5 will be. Nate doesn't even know who will be in the rotation. And people are SPAZZING out already?! Do you people see how incredibly unfair and reactionary you're being? 

Is this the twilight zone?


----------



## mixum (Mar 19, 2003)

ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.

That will be a fun time.

In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

mixum said:


> ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.
> 
> That will be a fun time.
> 
> In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope.


It will not be fun for me. I wish this team was better than it is. However, I will get no comfort from others realizing that we are sorely lacking in talent.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> When Nash and McMillan say, "it'll take time," that's exactly what they mean. The *Blazers have FINALLY dropped the malcontents and grumpy veterans*; now, it's grooming the current roster for the future and letting them play together to create some chemistry.


Really? Who was that complaining about the team's direction last night? Who got kicked out of practice the other day? Was that another Darius Miles that made the SI all-poison team?

That's a fifth of the roster right there. The notion that the team has got rid of "malcontents and grumpy veterans" is an incorrect statement about a quixotic goal. No veteran worth anything could be anything BUT grumpy on a team like this, IMO.



> I'm not going to call for Nash's head ... yet. What did you all realistically expect? As it stands, we have about the youngest team in the NBA; they're YOUNG and young players MAKE MISTAKES. Nate's only had the team together for about three weeks now ... what were your expectations at this point?


This preseason is almost irrelevant to my position, except insofar as we're seeing that the Blazers' big moves of bringing in Juan Dixon and dumping DA haven't seemed to improve the team.

If Nash had taken over mid last year and decided to rebuild the team, I would be much less critical of him. But he took over decisionmaking over two years ago. We had to wait two years for THIS? What kind of improvement should we expect with another two years of this kind of "progress"?

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You changed my conjugation. I said "are being proven" not "have been proven". It's an open question, but all signs point to mixum's comments having more truth to them than many others on the board.



Oops.. Sorry Ed.. I'm a programmer, not a english teacher apparently. What's a conjugation? Is it contagious? 

I don't know about expectations yet Ed.. I haven't seen or heard one game yet. I'll have to wait until my league pass kicks in to see them. Looking at all the posts from one or two people about this one game is just ridiculous. It's only one preseason game. Saying we need Paul Pierce, or some other player is kind of useless right now. This team hasn't run a set offense and consistant plays for years. Now we expect them to have it down after a few practices and some preseason games where Nate is subbing in different lineups to see who works together?

I just don't think ANYONE has been proven or are being proven right as of this moment.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

mixum said:


> ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.
> 
> That will be a fun time.
> 
> In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope.



Is it that so many people "love" this group, or is it so many people undersand that it takes more than half a pre season and a handful of practices to build team cohesiveness? Are the rest of us sooooo in "love" with this squad that we're blinded by it? Or is it that you're a troll that has nothing better to do with his/her time but come on this board and act like a jack ***?

The latter.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

mixum said:


> ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.
> 
> That will be a fun time.
> 
> In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope.


You stay classy.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

tlong said:


> It will not be fun for me. I wish this team was better than it is. However, I will get no comfort from others realizing that we are sorely lacking in talent.


Agreed. It's not about being right for me, except insofar as my ideas are challenged and my positions are demeaned because of some perceived innate pessimism.

I want to be proven wrong, and I want the team to buck what I see as long odds and succeed in the relatively near term. Schadenfreude definitely takes a back seat on this.

Ed O.


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

mixum said:


> ED O it will be fun to watch these same people who love this group start crying when they FINALLY REALIZE THAT THIS GROUP IS NOT THAT GOOD AND MOST OF OUR ROSTER WILL BE BACKUPS OR NBA-DL PLAYERS.
> 
> That will be a fun time.
> 
> In all honesty.....this franchise is done until Nash gets fired. I can tell you one thing...Nash will not be here next summer and thast is our only reason for hope.


Ya.. That will be a great time.. Are you going to hold your own bash party for it? I think it's so painfully clear no one thinks this group at this time is great. Most of us know it will take TIME or maybe a few trades.

Again, if it takes Nash being fired for some people to shut their pie hole, great. Get rid of him. Just tell us who you want so we don't have to go through this again.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Could he ride a bike or dunk a basketball three years ago?
> 
> A child is almost always going to learn and grow, while bad NBA teams are more likely to remain bad NBA teams than they are to get good.
> 
> Ed O.


That's wrong.

Bad teams with old players are very likely to remain bad.

Bad teams with young players are very likely to improve. If some of those players are talented, like Webster and Telfair, the team is likely to improve a lot.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> Ya.. That will be a great time.. Are you going to hold your own bash party for it? I think it's so painfully clear no one thinks this group at this time is great. Most of us know it will take TIME or maybe a few trades.
> 
> Again, if it takes Nash being fired for some people to shut their pie hole, great. Get rid of him. Just tell us who you want so we don't have to go through this again.


The thing is that in the prediction threads I believe most people said this team would win more than 30 games. I believe that is unrealistic. A few people even had us picked to be near .500 which is absurd.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Scout226 said:


> Again, if it takes Nash being fired for some people to shut their pie hole, great. Get rid of him. Just tell us who you want so we don't have to go through this again.


That's the problem. Guys like Mixum and Ed O identify the problems but neither can suggest a realistic or successful solution. Mix says Telfair is horrible and we shouldn't have drafted him, but who could we have drafted that would make this team better as of now? How about Webster? Bring in Paul Peirce! Ask the genius how we are going to do that. Everyone wants to act like they know everything, but its easy to identify the problem, the work is in resolving it and neither Mixum or Ed O can make any realistic suggestions.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Really? Who was that complaining about the team's direction last night? Who got kicked out of practice the other day? Was that another Darius Miles that made the SI all-poison team?
> 
> That's a fifth of the roster right there. The notion that the team has got rid of "malcontents and grumpy veterans" is an incorrect statement about a quixotic goal. No veteran worth anything could be anything BUT grumpy on a team like this, IMO.


What I meant was that we got rid of a lot of the steady problems, 'Sheed, Damon and Bonzi. It wasn't easy to shed the "Jailblazers" image when so many of the veterans were signed to to outrageous contracts.

Ruben complained, but that's Ruben being Ruben. What's a pre-season without some off-the-wall comment from Ruben? Zach might have gotten kicked out of practice, but was that a real big deal? Nate kicked out Jerome James, Danny Fortsen and Gary Payton out of practice. He's a tough coach. And Darius hasn't done anything THIS SEASON to warrant the "All-Poison" Team. He'll shape up or get shipped out, and so far this pre-season, he's been the steadiest Blazer.

And I still don't quite understand why every veteran should be upset - with the Blazers, at this moment, it's about patience. 



Ed O said:


> This preseason is almost irrelevant to my position, except insofar as we're seeing that the Blazers' big moves of bringing in Juan Dixon and dumping DA haven't seemed to improve the team.
> 
> If Nash had taken over mid last year and decided to rebuild the team, I would be much less critical of him. But he took over decisionmaking over two years ago. We had to wait two years for THIS? What kind of improvement should we expect with another two years of this kind of "progress"?
> 
> Ed O.


When Nash took over two years ago, he was saddled with a disenranchised city, huge contracts, bickering players, no prospects, an owner wanting to cut salaries and sponsers jumping ship. Put those factors together, and you have a problem that can't be corrected in the span of one season - maybe even two.

Nash has gotten Portland back to ground zero. He and Patterson have basically torn down the "old" Blazers image and reputation, and they're trying to re-build it, brick by brick.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> That's wrong.
> 
> Bad teams with old players are very likely to remain bad.
> 
> Bad teams with young players are very likely to improve. If some of those players are talented, like Webster and Telfair, the team is likely to improve a lot.


Disagreed. There are a half-dozen or so lottery teams each year that are young and talented. Most of them return to the lottery the next year.

There aren't very many old, bad teams from what I can tell. Certainly teams that have reached their full potential and are still bad are more likely to remain bad, but it doesn't follow that young teams are more likely to get good than they are to remain bad.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> What I meant was that we got rid of a lot of the steady problems, 'Sheed, Damon and Bonzi. It wasn't easy to shed the "Jailblazers" image when so many of the veterans were signed to to outrageous contracts.


What outrageous contracts were those? The only two that lasted more than two years into Nash's tenure are Ruben's and DA's.

Damon, Dale Davis, Bonzi, Rasheed... those were all expiring contracts by this point. 



> And I still don't quite understand why every veteran should be upset - with the Blazers, at this moment, it's about patience.


Wanna know why the veterans are understandably upset? Because "patience" doesn't work for them. By the time the team is good they'll be on another team or out of the league.

I'm not encouraging veterns to be disgruntled, but those that are willing to sit back and be part of a losing team without making any sort of fuss might not be as competitive as they should be.



> When Nash took over two years ago, he was saddled with a disenranchised city, huge contracts, bickering players, no prospects, an owner wanting to cut salaries and sponsers jumping ship. Put those factors together, and you have a problem that can't be corrected in the span of one season - maybe even two.


Well, it's been two seasons. This will be three. How many seasons does he get?

And no prospects? Outlaw and Zach are still two of the top prospects on the team.

Huge contracts? Nash signed Theo to an outrageous extension. He extended Zach and gave Darius a big deal. He traded Rasheed's expiring deal for an additional $10+m year of SAR.

Nash failed in his ability to keep the team competitive, and he hurt our long term prospects. I have almost zero confidence in his ability to succeed more in the long run than he has in the short.

Ed O.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

I don't think anyone expected this team to be good, but if the team continues to perform at the level they've shown thus far in the pre-season, I think there will be many disappointed with how bad the team is.

There are a number of good points that are made by Mixum/Ed/tlong, etc.

Telfair does look like he has very good potential and in his current shape, while not great is very serviceable. 

At SG we have guys with potential, probably most notably Martel, but we are very, VERY weak at that position now.

SF we have a lot of people but no-one who really stands out as a star. While not a strength, it is also not a weakness.

A key point that has been made, IMO, is that we are extremely weak in regard to an inside game. Zach is a very good player but is not a Karl Malone type of inside presence player. He gets his best inside points as 'garbage' points and when he tries to do an inside game, the team tends to stagnate. 

Rebounding: Good
Inside Defense: Decent
Inside Offense: Weak
Outside Offense: Weak
Mid-Range Offense: ?

I think the only way we are really going to score a decent number of points on a regular basis is in an open-court manner. Over the course of the year our half-court offense may mature but honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if we have trouble scoring 90pts on a regular basis.

Gramps...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Disagreed. There are a half-dozen or so lottery teams each year that are young and talented. Most of them return to the lottery the next year.
> 
> There aren't very many old, bad teams from what I can tell. Certainly teams that have reached their full potential and are still bad are more likely to remain bad, but it doesn't follow that young teams are more likely to get good than they are to remain bad.
> 
> Ed O.


Dallas Mavericks: 19 wins in 1999. Then 40, 53, 57 and 60 in the next 4 years. 

Chicago Bulls: 23 wins in 2004. 47 in 2005.

Denver Nuggets: 17 wins in 2003. Then 43 and 49.

Miami Heat: 25 wins in 2003. Then 42 and 59. 

I could go on and on. The only things that separate young teams who improve from young teams who remain bad (like Golden State and the Clippers) is the emergence of ONE star player. 

Dallas had Nowitzki. Chicago had Curry and to an extent, Hinrich and Crawford. Denver had Anthony. Miami had Dwayne Wade and then added Shaq, though their improvement was great with just Wade. 

All we need to do is develop ONE star player or 3 or so borderline stars. We've certainly got a handful of possible developing stars and a few solid reserves in the making.

Webster can flat out fill it up and when his defense improves, he could be a future all star. He's a bit more athletic than I'd imagined too. I could see him getting 20 a night within a couple years. 

Telfair, despite what many say, HAS improved greatly in just one season. After going to last night's game, I noticed that his outside shot looks a LOT better than last year. It just looks smoother. It's going to start falling for him sooner rather than later. His defense was excellent as well. He could easily be our star player in 1-2 years.

Despite the many criticisms from seemingly EVERYONE, Darius Miles could blossom into a star. He can defend, pass and get to the basket. If he's motivated, he could score 25 a night, get 7 rebounds, block 2 shots, dish out 4 assists. 

All it takes is ONE of those guys to develop into a star and we'll improve our record by 20-25 wins in one season.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> What outrageous contracts were those? The only two that lasted more than two years into Nash's tenure are Ruben's and DA's.
> 
> Damon, Dale Davis, Bonzi, Rasheed... those were all expiring contracts.


But they were both still on the books when Nash came into town, there's no disputing that or the fact that those contracts - expiring or not - hampered Nash's ability to make moves.



Ed O said:


> Well, it's been two seasons. This will be three. How many seasons does he get?


If we are still looking at the same group of guys playing the same BAD game at the end of this season, it would be hard for me to really get on board with Nash's direction. I guess my optimism is predicated on the continuing improvement and developing chemistry of this team.



Ed O said:


> And no prospects? Outlaw and Zach are still two of the top prospects on the team.


Did ANYONE really look at Outlaw as much of a player until last season? He didn't play much at all in his rookie season and under Cheeks last season. And Zach, well, there's not much argument here.



Ed O said:


> Huge contracts? Nash signed Theo to an outrageous extension. He extended Zach and gave Darius a big deal. He traded Rasheed's expiring deal for an additional $10+m year of SAR.
> 
> Nash failed in his ability to keep the team competitive, and he hurt our long term prospects. I have almost zero confidence in his ability to succeed more in the long run than he has in the short.
> 
> Ed O.


Theo had a seminal season after the trade, and that combined with his outstanding community work, convinced Nash he was worth it. And Darius did well after coming over from Cleveland. Looking back, it's more like those two were contract year players, but all I can do is hope that they improve under the new leadership.

And as for your last statement ... agree to disagree. I still see potential on the court with a coaching staff with the ability to help them realize it. Nash and McMillan weren't kidding when they said, "be patient." Sure, my patience will run out, but not if they improve and come together as the season goes on. Currently, it's way too early in the season to make a judgement call in that regard.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Fork said:


> Dallas Mavericks: 19 wins in 1999. Then 40, 53, 57 and 60 in the next 4 years.
> 
> Chicago Bulls: 23 wins in 2004. 47 in 2005.
> 
> ...


You mimic my sentiments exactly. Darius Miles though, I don't know about him. Has all the skills in the world but I don't think he wants it. You should see this video mix of him I have, he has just an insane amount of skills. I say if we can dump him and Theo for future picks and cap space to resign Joel we really should. I think Outlaw/Vik could take his spot, even Ruben for the time being.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

The Professional Fan said:


> That's the thing. The naysayers haven't given the Blazers ANY time to prove ANYTHING! This is truely amazing! Nate doesn't even know who the starting 5 will be. Nate doesn't even know who will be in the rotation. And people are SPAZZING out already?! Do you people see how incredibly unfair and reactionary you're being?
> 
> Is this the twilight zone?


Otherwise known as the Oregonian zone.



Jason Quick said:


> Well, all that optimism about a rebirth of the Trail Blazers, all that hope from the commanding presence of coach Nate McMillan, and all that promise of youth -- all of it is teetering dangerously on the precipice of disaster today.


Sheesh.  :krazy:

The entire future of the Blazers hinged on this one pre-season practice game featuring a bunch of college age kids. Oh, no!

Of course the Blazers are a bad team this year. Did Nit-Quick expect something different?


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Blazer Bert said:


> Otherwise known as the Oregonian zone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That comment by Quick, IMO, is his most absurd of all time. Unless he's seeing something we're not, I don't know how he can make that statement with a straight face. It's out of this world!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Dallas Mavericks: 19 wins in 1999. Then 40, 53, 57 and 60 in the next 4 years.


The 19 wins was in 50 games, remember. That's the equivalent of 31 wins.

The previous years they won 

89-90: 47-35
*90-91: 28-54* 
91-92: 22-60
92-93: 11-71
93-94: 13-69
94-95: 36-46
95-96: 26-56
96-97: 54-58
97-98: 20-62

So you pointing out that they got better in 2000 isn't really much of a much. EVERY team gets better eventually. It took them a decade to get out of it, and they had to find the right building blocks to make it happen.

Are the Blazers going to get it right the first time around? 



> Chicago Bulls: 23 wins in 2004. 47 in 2005.


Again, you're showing that a young team CAN improve. Of course they can. But let's look at the years leading up to that improvement:

97-98: 62-20
*98-99: 13-37 (equivalent of 21-61)*
99-00: 17-65
00-01: 15-67
01-02: 21-61
02-03: 30-52
03-04: 23-59

Are we the Bulls of 02-03, or of 99-00? 



> Denver Nuggets: 17 wins in 2003. Then 43 and 49.


Once again, you pick the tail end of a long and failed saga of rebuilding and aren't giving due notice to how easy it is to fail.

89-90: 43-39
*90-91: 20-62* 
91-92: 24-58
92-93: 36-46
93-94: 42-40
94-95: 41-41
95-96: 35-47
*96-97: 21-61*
97-98: 11-71
98-99: 14-36 (equivalent of 23-59)
99-00: 35-47
00-01: 40-42
*01-02: 27-55*
02-03: 17-65
03-04: 43-39

Denver has had multiple tear-downs over the past 15 years and they still have yet to win 50 games in any season. This might be the year that they do it, or it might not.



> Miami Heat: 25 wins in 2003. Then 42 and 59.


Where are the young players they built with? Eddie Jones? Shaq?

They added Wade, and he's critical, but it's not like they spend multiple years in the lottery like the Blazers have. They had one bad year and two mediocre ones after winning at a .600+ clip each of the previous five years. 

The success they've had the past year is due to Shaq and (to a lesser extent) Wade. Portland doesn't have anyone the caliber of Shaq, clearly, and the odds of a Wade emerging from the current Blazers group seem slim to me.



> I could go on and on. The only things that separate young teams who improve from young teams who remain bad (like Golden State and the Clippers) is the emergence of ONE star player.


I disagree. Chicago doesn't have one star player and they appear to have escaped the lottery well, while Dallas had Kidd, Denver had McDyess and the Bulls had Brand. Stuff happens, and even WITH a very good, star-caliber player, rebuilding efforts go awry much more often than they work out.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

wastro said:


> But they were both still on the books when Nash came into town, there's no disputing that or the fact that those contracts - expiring or not - hampered Nash's ability to make moves.


I'd definitely dispute it. How does having a bunch of expiring or short-term contracts hinder moves? Most teams have more flexibility when they have shorter contracts, and some teams are able to get value for expiring contracts.



> If we are still looking at the same group of guys playing the same BAD game at the end of this season, it would be hard for me to really get on board with Nash's direction. I guess my optimism is predicated on the continuing improvement and developing chemistry of this team.


That's cool. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind. Just to admit that faith in chemistry and improvement are the best chance for the team to be better 



> Did ANYONE really look at Outlaw as much of a player until last season? He didn't play much at all in his rookie season and under Cheeks last season. And Zach, well, there's not much argument here.


He was a first rounder, taken over Barbosa and Howard and Lampe, each of whom we widely considered pretty good players. Outlaw was far from being able to contribute, but he was definitely a prospect in my opinion.



> Theo had a seminal season after the trade, and that combined with his outstanding community work, convinced Nash he was worth it. And Darius did well after coming over from Cleveland. Looking back, it's more like those two were contract year players, but all I can do is hope that they improve under the new leadership.


I know Nash had reasons for doing what he did... he's not insane. But particularly in the case of Theo, it was just a bad move. Ratliff was a year away from being a free agent, he had a long and storied history of injuries, and he was 30 when we signed him to the extension.

He might not be insane to have made the move, but he was wrong. Any claims that the Blazers are too poor to make moves don't hold water with me after that move... Nash can spend money but it's questionable whether he will spend it wisely.

Ed O.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> To say bad teams just stay bad is absurd.


Exactly. I pointed this out awhile back when Ed.O made the same ridiculous claim. There are many, many, many examples of bad teams eventually becoming very good ones, including our own Trail Blazers. To miss this blatantly obvious fact is remarkable.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Fork said:
> 
> 
> > Again, you're showing that a young team CAN improve. Of course they can. But let's look at the years leading up to that improvement:
> ...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Citing Quick to support your opinions is as effective as using a screen door for a roof on a house in Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Talkhard said:


> Exactly. I pointed this out awhile back when Ed.O made the same ridiculous claim. There are many, many, many examples of bad teams eventually becoming very good ones, including our own Trail Blazers. To miss this blatantly obvious fact is remarkable.


You're setting up a straw man. Bad teams don't ALWAYS stay bad. They tend to do so.

Once one can make the (rather clear, IMO) differentiation between an absolute and a tendency, I think it's hard to argue against the proposition that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to stay bad.

There are absolutely, positively exceptions. But they don't negate the general case.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Ed O said:
> 
> 
> > Okay. I'll go into depth on ONE team, rather than address all 4 of the examples I gave. Chicago.
> ...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> You're setting up a straw man. Bad teams don't ALWAYS stay bad. They tend to do so.
> 
> Once one can make the (rather clear, IMO) differentiation between an absolute and a tendency, I think it's hard to argue against the proposition that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to stay bad.
> 
> ...


It's not that bad teams stay bad. 

It's that organizations that produce bad teams, tend to keep doing the same things that got them to be bad in the first place. The Clippers stayed bad because every time they'd get a top draft pick, they'd blow it on somebody who was terrible or they'd let him develop for 3-4 years and trade him for another top pick, because they didn't want to pay for the player. Chicago stayed bad because they kept making bad draft picks and/or trading their established players for top draft picks. 

There's no evidence that that's the case here in Portland.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> It's not that bad teams stay bad.


It absolutely is. Look at ANY SINGLE FACTOR to determine team success in the upcoming year and I would bet you almost anything that the previous year's winning percentage is the most indicative.

Why? Because the previous year factors in the players, the coaches, the management, the owner's pocketbooks... everything. Some players will get better with age and some will get worse with age, and some coaches will be replaced with better coaches and some with worse. Not everything comes out in the wash, but many things do.

Your point about "bad organizations" might be true, but I don't think it means much to me in regards to the Blazers. Nash has a long history of building bad teams in the NBA... Patterson has been out of the NBA for about a decade... Nate was on the verge of being fired as a Sonics coach this time last year. Paul Allen (while still willing to spend a lot of money) simply isn't willing to open the checkbook willy-nilly anymore. What, other than hope, indicates that our franchise is special? That our franchise is somehow superior to the other NBA teams that have failed so often in the past?

Maybe Portland will make great draft picks, but injuries will hit. Or maybe the GM will get replaced and they'll go in a new direction. Or maybe they'll win 35 games this year and add the veteran to get them "over the hump" and backslide for the next few years as a result. I'm not a fortune teller, and none of these occurrences, individually or collectively, are assured of happening. But there are so many things that can go wrong--and so many things need to go right--for a team where Portland is to become relevant again in the NBA that I simply think the odds are stacked against it happening with the current group of guys.

Ed O.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

> Chicago stayed bad because they kept making bad draft picks and/or trading their established players for top draft picks.
> 
> There's no evidence that that's the case here in Portland.


That is because there is little history of Portland having opportunity to have a relatively high pick. It is too early to tell how some of our picks are going to turn out. Outlaw, Telfair, Jack, Monia, Victor, Martel all have potential but how are they going to eventually turn out? Can we wait?

Of those, the primary two to consider are Telfair and Webster as they were chosen relatively low in the draft and so more should be expected of them. 

If, in two years, we are still looking to fill the PG or SG position, then we begin to have a history of bad picks.

Do not equate a lack of history with something not happening. Just because we don't have the history doesn't mean we are not on the same path the Bulls were on in taking several tries before they got a rebuild that worked.

Gramps...


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Where are all the people who think that Nash is doing a great job?
> 
> Where are all the people who said that Telfair is an improved shooter?
> 
> ...


I don't imagine there are many, if any, people on the board who would answer in the affirmative to all of your questions, Ed. But you do pose some good ones and here are my thoughts on them:

1. I'd give Nash womewhere between a C and a D so far. I agree with your takes that he acted too quickly and spent too much on Zach and Theo last fall. I think he biffed on using the one-time luxury tax exception on DA. I think he's drafted well and I think he did a good job in getting McMillan signed last summer. I don't know who to fault for the decision to go entirely with the youth movement (it could have been Paul Allen's call), but I'll just say that I disagree with the strategy. As the Bulls and may others have demonstrated, it can be a long road back from awful. I don't think there was a need for the Blazers to go entirely with youth and I think we'll be paying the price for it for a considerable period. I do think that there's a solid core of talent here, but given the lack of experience the questions will be how long can be keep that core here and how long will it take to gain enough experience to translate talent into wins?

2. I'm waiting to see if Telfair's summer work will result in improved shooting. He's been awful in the two games he's played, but two pre-season games is hardly a fair test for a young player adjusting to a new coach and to the responsibilities of running a new offense. I think we have to give him a couple of months into the season to draw any valid conclusions.

3. Frankly, I never did understand the addition of Dixon or Blake. I think Dixon will have some good games, as his past record indicates, but I don't see him as a steady contributor. I'm also concerned that a lack of playing time may result in him being an unhappy camper. I'd rather have seen the Blazers bring in an experienced veteran, and barring that, I'd prefer that they had simply gone with a rotation of Webster, Smith, and Outlaw.

4. A sprained ankle makes Joel injury prone? Come on.

5. Who knows on Zach's knee? Even if it knee is structurally sound, I'd be willing to bet that it takes Zach half a season to regain his confidence in it enough to perform like the Zach of old. 

6. I have never thought that going without veterans was a smart move. I'm still hopeful that there will be a decision made this season to trade one or two of our young guys, paired with one of our big contracts, for some experienced players. IMO, that's the best hope to avoid a long stint in lottery land.

7. I like what I see from Nate so far, but since he's not suiting up, I suspect that it will be the players who determine whether or not there are more wins than last year. The only conclusion to be drawn from the three pre-season games so far is that the Blazers are not ready for the season yet. Let's hope that they can make some fast progress or things could get really ugly. My feeling is that there will be improvement, but I'm not looking for a giant leap.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> I don't imagine there are many, if any, people on the board who would answer in the affirmative to all of your questions, Ed. But you do pose some good ones and here are my thoughts on them:


Since 99% of my posts are arguing with people or just disagreeing, I wanted to post a thank you for giving your thoughts on some of the issues. It gives me substantive stuff to chew on.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Where are all the people who said that Telfair is an improved shooter?


Evidently, you haven't watched the kid shoot this year. If you had, you'd admit that his stroke looks a LOT better than it did last year. He's really worked out his mechanics. It may not be falling just yet, but his shot is improved.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> 2. I'm waiting to see if Telfair's summer work will result in improved shooting. He's been awful in the two games he's played, but two pre-season games is hardly a fair test for a young player adjusting to a new coach and to the responsibilities of running a new offense. I think we have to give him a couple of months into the season to draw any valid conclusions.


I only went to the 2nd game, but most of Telfair's misses in that game were actually on plays where he drove to the hoop, got hacked and/or shoved and didn't get a call. 

His outside shot looks better.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Since 99% of my posts are arguing with people or just disagreeing, I wanted to post a thank you for giving your thoughts on some of the issues. It gives me substantive stuff to chew on.
> 
> Ed O.



I just want to let you know that although you are arguing with many posters, there are others like myself who fall more into your camp. You articulate your points better than I can, so I just let you do all the responding. 

Obviously we are all individuals, so I don't agree with 100% of your thoughts. For instance, I think the Blazers are a unique organization if for no other reason, we have the richest owner in the NBA. Allen is a sports fan, a basketball and loves to spend money. If these young kids do work out and Telfair, Webster, Miles and Zach all develop together, I don't see having the problem other teams have of not being able to afford all of them. Also, although other bad teams have been young, I can't recall a younger line up than mentioned above (I could be wrong). It's a long shot, but if they all reach their potential, then this team will be a force to be reckoned with.

But for now, I agree with your analysis that Nash and Patterson has done a terrible job transforming this team (i think they have been hypocritical as well) and that all the stars will have to align before our team is on the NBA map again. I'm not sure why everyone is so convinced that this team will definitely be competitive in the future . . .


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Evidently, you haven't watched the kid shoot this year. If you had, you'd admit that his stroke looks a LOT better than it did last year. He's really worked out his mechanics. It may not be falling just yet, but his shot is improved.


I don't care what a players' shot looks like, to be perfectly honest. I'm not a coach and even players with ugly shots can hit with regularity. (Look at Bonzi Wells... the dude shoots a knuckleball and he's hit over 34% of his three pointers in his career.)

I didn't think that Telfair's shot last year looked bad. But the results (in terms of shooting percentage) sure did.

Hopefully what you're seeing as an improved form is legit, and I hope that it leads to better shooting results, too.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't care what a players' shot looks like, to be perfectly honest. I'm not a coach and even players with ugly shots can hit with regularity. (Look at Bonzi Wells... the dude shoots a knuckleball and he's hit over 34% of his three pointers in his career.)
> 
> I didn't think that Telfair's shot last year looked bad. But the results (in terms of shooting percentage) sure did.
> 
> ...


Well, he's shooting 3-8 from 3pt range this year, so it's pretty early to say his shot DOESN'T look improved either.

His misses have come, as I said earlier, on drives to the basket where he's been bumped but doesn't get the call. 

Everyone, even impartial observers, have stated that Telfair's outside shooting has improved. That's better evidence than 'Well, he sucked last year so he'll suck this year too.'


----------



## chula vista blazer (Jul 13, 2005)

Some people say the sun will come up tomorrow. Others say, who knows if there will be a tomorrow.

I like the Blazers and generally find the pre-season meaningless (or does anyone seriously think that San Antonio is one of the worst teams based on their record this preseason?). Or to say it more accurately, the meaning from preseason games takes some discernment to really analyze well. A lot of it is just trying out different players.

Positives that I see...

Telfair developing into an above average point guard- he's been generally lauded for his defense and his assist totals are consistently high. People say his shot looks smoother.

Webster further along than you would think for a higher schooler- Anyone remember Jermaine O'Neal when he first came out? I think it's a good sign that Webster seems to fit into the offense fairly well. He's by no means an average shooting guard yet, but he looks pretty darn good for a high schooler. This prospect looks good so far.

Small forward position- still looks strong, with good production nightly from the position, be it Miles, Outlaw or the russian.

Zach looks well on his way back from his injury- low field goal percentage, but that should come back eventually. He seems to move fairly well.

Have some San Diego (or Chula Vista) sunshine to go with your Portland rain, Mixum and Ed. I still think the Blazers will hit 30 plus wins, but, hey, if they don't, we'll have another good pick. You have to admit that the structure of our team looks pretty good in the long term.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Fork said:


> Well, he's shooting 3-8 from 3pt range this year'


37.5% is good

Which is not as good as the career averages of Hornacek but better than DA 34.3%.. less than Ray Ray 39.7%... better than Pierce 35.8% 

oh my.. those are some pretty good names thrown out there as shooters now.... guess he is not so bad this year after all :wink:


yes.. its only a beginning.. and a short sampling.... the proof will be in the pudding... at the end of the year and with an average amount of attempts

Personally I want him to dish out 10 dimes a game and less than 3 turnouvers while only making 10 pts


the anti Damon.... 


as a team last night.. 3 pt shooting was well above 40%.... the 2 FG% was pathetic........ we simply need to back up


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> THE SINGLE DUMBEST THING POR could do is take Mixum's idiotic advice....PANIC...and start trading away young players for MEDIOCRE veterans in order to win 5-10 more games...THAT would Moronic...


I agree, but I think there is a really excellent chance of exactly that happening sometime before the trade deadline comes around this year. 

Patience is not a common virtue in the NBA.

barfo


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

barfo said:


> I agree, but I think there is a really excellent chance of exactly that happening sometime before the trade deadline comes around this year.
> 
> Patience is not a common virtue in the NBA.
> 
> barfo


I think there can be some kind of balance struck between panic and standing pat though. WIth a team as unbalances as ours is, some kind of movement WILL be needed. We'll have to trade at least one small forward.......and even if that player ends up being Travis Outlaw, I dont think it could neccessarily be described as panic.

I think there will be trades.....but I dont think the team will panic.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

barfo said:


> I agree, but I think there is a really excellent chance of exactly that happening sometime before the trade deadline comes around this year.
> 
> Patience is not a common virtue in the NBA.
> 
> barfo



Oh I think a trade will be made...I think a trade NEEDS to be made...There are just WAAAAY too many SF on the team...Ruben, Miles, Outlaw, Khryapa & Monia...and the team DEFINITELY needs another PF\Banger type.

I am not against POR making *A* trade to balance the roster and bring in a veteran...However I would rather see them trade a young SF for a young PF...be it a David Lee or Chris Taft...Chris Wilcox...etc...

A guy like Nene would be ideal...and worth IMO, dealing Outlaw for....Young for young...PF\C for SF...

And I DEFINITELY think Ruben needs to go...the sooner the better, this is just the tip of the iceberg with him....he won't be happy all year long, better to cut him loose now than have to deal with his meltdowns all year long....then again, I never liked him anyway (big surprise)....


----------

