# Roy a perfect fit?



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

This guy is sure high on Roy and thinks he'd be a perfect fit here.



> Indications are that the Portland Trail Blazers will choose Roy with the fourth pick in the draft. There, he will join an interesting backcourt cast that includes point guards Steve Blake, Jarrett Jack and Sebastian Telfair. He'll likely learn under 10-year veteran Voshon Lenard, a lights-out shooter who does little else on the court, and Juan Dixon, a fourth-year guy, a good shooter, but whose build is so slender that he could hide behind a rake. Also residing there is Martell Webster, a buddy of Roy's and a UW recruit who instead went into the NBA straight out of Seattle Prep.
> 
> In other words, Roy has a chance to contribute right away.


link 

I'm not sold by any means, but I wouldn't be surprise if we do draft him. Really not much new there except the guy thinks Roy is 'spectacular'.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

if this happens i will be pissed off , we need a big or gay or morrison thats it


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

agreed 

only worse pick would be picking foye or williams


----------



## azsun18 (Aug 12, 2004)

I am not sure how much research they did since they say he will learn under Lenard. Isn't Lenard a FA who I would say the chances are slim to none that we resign him.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Roy would be the worst possible pick at #4 of the people worth picking top 5 or 6. We in no way need a shooting guard. We need front court help so badly. Roy = unspectacular player with knee problems. But he is a Nate guy so things should be ok.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah iirc lendard is good as gone!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

This is the time of year when anyone with a modem becomes an "expert". The Blazers have too many guards at the moment - Blake, Telfair, Jack, Webster. The consensus is one of them has to go, if not this year then next. Why add another? And correct, Lenard is almost sure to be gone. I hope so because that would give the team 5 guards, 6 if they really do draft Roy! And while Lenard allowed the team to dump Ruben Patterson and behaved well, not complaining about being a bench warmer on a losing team, I still can't see the Blazers re-signing him. And it is not sure how much of a mentor he could be from the end of the bench. I wish Lenard well in the future, but his future is elsewhere.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Roy would be the worst possible pick at #4 of the people worth picking top 5 or 6. We in no way need a shooting guard.


Well, except for the nagging suspiscion that our current 2-guard rotation is perhaps the worst in the league, I guess I agree with you.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Well, except for the nagging suspiscion that our current 2-guard rotation is perhaps the worst in the league, I guess I agree with you.



I'd go with youngest before worst. Roy IMO is no better than Webster, so why pick him?


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

To make matters just a little bit more confusing I've seen several reports suggesting Portland would bring Roy in to play point guard.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

cimalee said:


> if this happens i will be pissed off , we need a big or gay or morrison thats it


Yeah, winning and playing quality basketball really sucks!


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I'd go with youngest before worst. Roy IMO is no better than Webster, so why pick him?


Please...Roy has proven himself in 4 years in college and is a different type of player than Webster. Roy put up 20 ppg and was a blown call from leading his team possibly to the final four.  Roy is an all-around player who scores, passes, and defends.

Martell, with his extra bulk, can slide over to the 3 and spread the floor with his shooting.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I like Roy, but I don't like him at #4. It's simply too high to take him IMO, because I don't see a very high ceiling on Brandon like I do on the other 4 or 5 top prospects.

Roy will be able to help the Blazers next year, no question in my mind (he could start over Webster pretty easily). But help them do what? He's not good enough to drag the team into the playoffs--no player in this draft is--and I don't see long-term him being a potential all-star.

So between the limited value he'd have in the near term (because of the team's poor state) and his long term limitations (in terms of him being older and a bit on the small side for the 2 spot) I hope Portland either trades down to the 7-8 spots and takes him there or picks another player at the 4 spot.

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> Please...Roy has proven himself in 4 years in college


Really? All I see is one good year, after 3 years where he was a non factor.....



> Roy is an all-around player who scores, passes, and defends.


and he doesn't excel at any of them...that is a good qualoty for a #4 pick, don't you think?


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I like Roy, but I don't like him at #4. It's simply too high to take him IMO, because I don't see a very high ceiling on Brandon like I do on the other 4 or 5 top prospects.
> 
> Roy will be able to help the Blazers next year, no question in my mind (he could start over Webster pretty easily). But help them do what? He's not good enough to drag the team into the playoffs--no player in this draft is--and I don't see long-term him being a potential all-star.
> 
> ...


Very well said. Thanks for saving me the trouble! :biggrin: 

Roy's ceiling is closer to Reddick than it is to Morrison or Gay. He isn't even really a "safe" pick, given that he never really emerged until he was a senior.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

moot point, you guys are trading jack and the #4 for the first pick and taking aldridge, was there ever any doubt.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> moot point, you guys are trading jack and the #4 for the first pick and taking aldridge, was there ever any doubt.


Keep dreaming there fan boy....


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I will be sorely disappointed if we end up trading Jack this early on in his career. How 'bout Blake, Dixon and the #4?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

You'd think if we do take Roy there has to be a trade in place and not just moving down in the lottery.

Anyone else suddenly getting notifications about replies to posts you've posted in? I've never got them before and now I've got over a dozen since 1pm today.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

mgb said:


> Anyone else suddenly getting notifications about replies to posts you've posted in? I've never got them before and now I've got over a dozen since 1pm today.


Not me. Check your settings.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Reep said:


> Not me. Check your settings.


Ok, I found a place that had it so I'd get instant notifications. The thing I don't understand is I've never got them before and didn't change it from what it was originally.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> I like Roy, but I don't like him at #4. It's simply too high to take him IMO, because I don't see a very high ceiling on Brandon like I do on the other 4 or 5 top prospects.
> 
> Roy will be able to help the Blazers next year, no question in my mind (he could start over Webster pretty easily). But help them do what? He's not good enough to drag the team into the playoffs--no player in this draft is--and I don't see long-term him being a potential all-star.
> 
> ...



Poor logic, Ed.

That's the kind of thinking that leads teams to draft an Olowokandi over Vince Carter or Paul Pierce. Just pick the best player available and move on. Roy is the best player and will fill the Blazers' need at SG for ten years.

Martell has not proven to Nate that he can defend at the 2 spot. It's hard to develop the quickness necessary to defend the perimeter. Roy has that, Martell does not. Martell does have bulk to help defend the post and has good length as well, which will help him defend at the 3.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Poor logic, Ed.
> 
> That's the kind of thinking that leads teams to draft an Olowokandi over Vince Carter or Paul Pierce. Just pick the best player available and move on. Roy is the best player and will fill the Blazers' need at SG for ten years.


um...

wha?

Roy isn't the best player. not by a long shot. If anything HE'S like drafting Kandi-man over those guys. 



> Martell has not proven to Nate that he can defend at the 2 spot. It's hard to develop the quickness necessary to defend the perimeter. Roy has that, Martell does not. Martell does have bulk to help defend the post and has good length as well, which will help him defend at the 3.


let me guess, you're a husky


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Roy isn't the best player.

He's solid and will be a decent pro, but nothing outstanding. We need someone who has a chance or is outstanding in atleast one part of their game.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

rainman said:


> moot point, you guys are trading jack and the #4 for the first pick and taking aldridge, was there ever any doubt.



I'd love that


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

nope roy is not what we needs we have a ton of solid players already what we need is outstanding player like: aldridge morrison gay or bargnani. NO one else should be even drafted at the number 4 unless we trade roy.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> Roy isn't the best player. not by a long shot. If anything HE'S like drafting Kandi-man over those guys.
> 
> let me guess, you're a husky


Check his game and his stats. Roy plays the game like Pierce, attacking the basket, while creating for others, which is what the Blazers need.

Roy should be able to get 18/5/5 next year. Who else in the draft has that kind of potential?

Gay- No. He has no handle.
Morrison- No, he has shown no ability to create for anyone other than himself.

Next?????


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Roy should be able to get 18/5/5 next year.


You are so high it's incredible.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Check his game and his stats. Roy plays the game like Pierce, attacking the basket, while creating for others, which is what the Blazers need.
> 
> Roy should be able to get 18/5/5 next year. Who else in the draft has that kind of potential?
> 
> ...



you simply can't be serious. Not many players, especially out of college, get 18-5-5...let alone an undersized SG who never averaged that in college.

Roy simply ain't that good. He's good, but he's not 18-5-5 good, or "best in the draft" good.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Brandon Roy 6-5 195 SG Washington Sr.
Rudy Gay 6-8 220 SF UConn So.
Randy Foye 6-3 205 PG Villanova Sr.
Tyrus Thomas 6-9 218 PF LSU Fr.
Adam Morrison 6-8 220 SF Gonzaga Jr.
Andrea Bargnani 6-11 240 PF Italy 1985
LaMarcus Aldridge 6-11 245 PF Tex. So.

i see no need for roy on our team we dont need anymore guards and if we do draft an sg it should be later in the draft.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Ed O said:


> You are so high it's incredible.


No doubt... pass that ****! :clown:


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I will be sorely disappointed if we end up trading Jack this early on in his career. How 'bout Blake, Dixon and the #4?


That would be awesome.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> You are so high it's incredible.
> 
> Ed O.


OK, maybe 18/5/5 is a bit much, and I'm feeling very relaxed and am somewhat hungry, but that's enough about me.

Look at what Roy has been able to do at UDub: He scores, rebounds, distributes and plays D.

Taking a bit off the top of my projection, would you all be happy with:

15 pts
5 reb
4 assists
1.2 steals

Out of your 2 guard? I would and Roy will deliver: now.

No one else in the draft can match the productivity that Roy will give you. This team has plenty of athletes, what it needs is guys who can raise the level of play of others on the team.

Seriously, UW had no inside game to go to at all, and Roy was able to double Adam's assist# and nearly equal Gay's rebounding, while Gay spent 50% of his time playing PF.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Blazer Maven said:


> OK, maybe 18/5/5 is a bit much, and I'm feeling very relaxed and am somewhat hungry, but that's enough about me.
> 
> Look at what Roy has been able to do at UDub: He scores, rebounds, distributes and plays D.
> 
> ...




hey look at me I can speculate also 

Morrison will average 

30 pts
9 rbs
2 asts
1 stl

Wouldn't that be better?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Check his game and his stats. Roy plays the game like Pierce, attacking the basket, while creating for others, which is what the Blazers need.
> 
> Roy should be able to get 18/5/5 next year. Who else in the draft has that kind of potential?
> 
> ...


Dwane Wade who had an OUTSTANDING rookie year that blew people away:

Wade Rookie year: 16.2, 4.0, 4.5

A recent example of those stats (18/5/5) for their rookie year: 20.9, 5.5, 5.9







The player: LeBron James. The rookie campaign - outstanding.

Are you saying Roy will put up near LeBron stats?

Other rookies that put up impressive scoring numbers, along with good (or better) rebounding AND assists:

Oscar Robertson, Charlie Scott, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Grant Hill, Steve Francis, LeBron James.

Do you think Roy as a prospect belongs in that group?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I'd be giddy as a school girl if morrison put up 13-4-2


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Masbee said:


> Dwane Wade who had an OUTSTANDING rookie year that blew people away:
> 
> Wade Rookie year: 16.2, 4.0, 4.5


That's actually the EXACT person that I looked up, with James being second.

I just don't see Roy putting up 16 ppg and 4 rpg and 4 apg as a rookie. I guess it's possible, but it's not likely at all.

Ed O.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> hey look at me I can speculate also
> 
> Morrison will average
> 
> ...


My projection was based on Roy's actual production last year, with some additional assists because he will be playing with a PF who can hit a mid range jumper.

Adam couldn't board in the WCC and he will not board in the NBA. Adam is nice, but he can't play D and cannot rebound, which makes him a bad fit for Portland.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Roy reminds me of a bit of a "poor man's" Manu Ginobili... and an absolutely "bankrupt with no hope of financial stability in the future" version of Dwyane Wade. :biggrin: 

So, at best, I guess I see him being a pre-injury Derek Anderson (approx. 15.5ppg, 4.4rpg, 3.7apg, 1.5spg) ... and I don't mean in his (Roy's) rookie year, I'm talkin' prime #'s. :angel: Not that that's necessarily a "bad" thing, I'd just be looking to grab a player a step above that with a #4 pick... even in the weakest of drafts.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> My projection was based on Roy's actual production last year, with some additional assists because he will be playing with a PF who can hit a mid range jumper.
> 
> Adam couldn't board in the WCC and he will not board in the NBA. Adam is nice, but he can't play D and cannot rebound, which makes him a bad fit for Portland.



based on "actual production" then, I say that Morrison will averaged 25 ppg, 6 boards and 3 assists.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SMiLE said:


> based on "actual production" then, I say that Morrison will averaged 25 ppg, 6 boards and 3 assists.


Morrison's production goes up while stepping up to the NBA?? JP Batista gets 25/15 then!!!

If you want scoring alone, take Morrison, if you want a complete player, take Roy.

Roy is far closer to the Pierce/Wade than a Derek Anderson type. DA is/was a streaky player, Roy is solid. He's a solid BMW in a world that appreciates flash and sizzle. Roy is the type of player who wins rings, not dunk contests.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Morrison's production goes up while stepping up to the NBA?? JP Batista gets 25/15 then!!!
> 
> If you want scoring alone, take Morrison, if you want a complete player, take Roy.


you upped roys production, so why are you complaining that I uppsed adams rebounding by less than 1, and assists by just over 1? and ppg down by 3?



> Roy is far closer to the Pierce/Wade than a Derek Anderson type. DA is/was a streaky player, Roy is solid. He's a solid BMW in a world that appreciates flash and sizzle. Roy is the type of player who wins rings, not dunk contests.


yeah...oook...are you actually just doing your best zagsfan impersonation? because I honestly can't see how anyone could be saying such things about branden roy, and be serious.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Very interesting thread.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

This thread should have been burried with Hoffa.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> This thread should have been burried with Hoffa.


Nothing like re-reading some of these old draft threads to make me realize how happy I am that the Blazers employ professional scouts to make their draft picks, instead of simply relying on the "wisdom" expressed here on a daily basis. :biggrin:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Nothing like re-reading some of these old draft threads to make me realize how happy I am that the Blazers employ professional scouts to make their draft picks, instead of simply relying on the "wisdom" expressed here on a daily basis. :biggrin:




LOL I did like Aldridge though :biggrin:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

I think I said this in another thread, but I'm glad I was completely off base here.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

Blazers Maven is a damn Nostradamus!!! A medium with powers beyond compare!!!



blazers maven said:


> Taking a bit off the top of my projection, would you all be happy with:
> 
> 15 pts
> 5 reb
> ...


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

I thought Morrison was the safe pick in trying to rebuild fan interest, but holy crap was I wrong! Also many people just weren't happy with the idea of drafting Roy a #4, but we didn't have to. Holy Crap-ola!!! We had the best draft EVER!!!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

wow. mega-props to Blazer Maven. if he hadn't gotten browbeaten down into lowering his statistical expectations, this would've been the Holy Grail thread for him. 

Roy's at 16/4/4, and climbing. that 18/5/5 may be a little hard to reach with less than 25 games left in the season, but you also have to remember Roy missed a lot of games. so it's possible. 

Ed's Dwayne Wade comparison is rich, and makes me thrilled about Roy's future. 

ROFL about the "high ceiling of Morrison." it's high in the sense that the Stache has no vertical, and so the roof of the arena must look higher up to him. 

also funny reading all the posts about how loaded we already were with young guards. goes to show that the "best player available" mantra really is true. cream always rises.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I am astonished by how wrong the consensus opinion was on Roy:



> I just don't see Roy putting up 16 ppg and 4 rpg and 4 apg as a rookie. I guess it's possible, but it's not likely at all.


The season is not over,and Roy's numbers are still going up. And he is at 15.6/4/4 and the 1.2 steals Blazer Maven predicted. I wuz wrong. So were most of us. Another reason to praise the Blazer draft folks!

iWatas


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I was not against drafting Roy, but I wanted to get a big with our high pick. I also had Rudy Gay high on my list.

As you can see in this thread, I found it improbable that Roy was the kind of player that could have a better rookie season than Dwayne Wade.

After the draft I was thrilled. We got my #1 big (Bargnani was a mystery to me, Thomas was a tweener), AND we got a great guard prospect. I soured a lot on Gay during the draft, when he reacted badly while he was dropping. I am tired of goofballs.

Now that we had Roy on board, I still didn't expect big things during a rookie campaign. Very, very few rookies make a splash in the NBA. It is hard for them. It is rare.

Then I saw Roy during Summer League. That's all it took for me to adjust my expectations - upward - by a lot. I saw big things coming soon from this guy. There is a thread about that, and another where many of us made pre-season predictions on Roy's yearly stats.


----------



## Spud147 (Jul 15, 2005)

drexlersdad said:


> Blazers Maven is a damn Nostradamus!!! A medium with powers beyond compare!!!


I was just going to say the same thing. In the future, if I sign up for fantasy basketball, I'm not going to make a move without consulting Blazer Maven.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Here is something to chew on.

Wade's rookie season PER: 17.6

Roy's current (estimated) PER: 17.99

That rookie year didn't make Wade a star though. He kept getting better and better and better:

2nd year: 23.1 (Star)
3rd year: 27.6 (SuperStar)

LOTS of players have had PER numbers of 17 through 20, and then never amounted to much after that. Just wanted to point out the stat similarity of the two rookie season's, especially as I questioned the possibility of that happening.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

LOL ED O LOL

wow I was wrong and right at the same time, right that we should get a big but wrong about not needing Roy!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I got a email someone posted in this thread so I knew I must of posted in it but I was surprise to see I started the thread.

I remember I wanted Aldridge originally and then ended up on the Morrison band wagon, glad that didn't happen and we did get Roy, but with our first pick we did get who I was hoping and I'm very glad we did. Adding Roy at the 6/7 is unbelievable! Kick in Sergio at 25? WOW!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I just have one question:

Who does Blazer Maven (stud) like with the 7th pick in the 2007 draft?


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

I humbly bow to Blazer Maven on this one. I wanted Morrison, because Miles turned out to be such a goof and I figured perimeter shooting was our biggest need.
Aldridge + Roy + Rodriguez > Morrison.

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> Here is something to chew on.
> 
> Wade's rookie season PER: 17.6
> 
> ...


Here's some homework for you. What was Wade's PER in his years at Marquette? Roy had a 17.8 PER(Soph yr.), 24.1 (Junior yr.) then 29.9 (Senior yr.). 

That improvement is almost identical to the improvement Wade showed in the NBA.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

I loved our draft.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That's actually the EXACT person that I looked up, with James being second.
> 
> I just don't see Roy putting up 16 ppg and 4 rpg and 4 apg as a rookie. I guess it's possible, but it's not likely at all.
> 
> Ed O.


Well, I'm definitely wrong there (although I give myself props for nailing almost exactly what he would NOT get ). Of course, in the other thread I said I was in favor of getting him at the 7 or 8 spot... and I definitely defended Roy in several other threads... AND I was on record immediately after the draft as saying that it was an excellent draft.

So it's not all bad.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

welcome to the board Ed O! Are you any relation to Ed O, a former great poster we had here?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Well, I'm definitely wrong there (although I give myself props for nailing almost exactly what he would NOT get ). Of course, in the other thread I said I was in favor of getting him at the 7 or 8 spot... and I definitely defended Roy in several other threads... AND I was on record immediately after the draft as saying that it was an excellent draft.
> 
> So it's not all bad.
> 
> Ed O.


Nice seeing you posting, Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Well, I'm definitely wrong there (although I give myself props for nailing almost exactly what he would NOT get ). Of course, in the other thread I said I was in favor of getting him at the 7 or 8 spot... and I definitely defended Roy in several other threads... AND I was on record immediately after the draft as saying that it was an excellent draft.
> 
> So it's not all bad.
> 
> Ed O.


This brings up something I would like to revise. Oh, I love revisionism.

Last summer, when we brought up Wade as a comparo, I think we (I did) overstated how good of a rookie campaign Wade had. This was brought home when I checked out his PER rating. "Only" 17. That is a solid number, especially for a rookie. But it isn't overwhelming.

So, we were thinking - Wade is great because he is a current SuperStar. Wade had an outstanding rookie year. Little chance Roy can produce like that.

Yet, Wade was not "outstanding" his rookie year. Just real solid. Kinda like Roy.

I know the reason why my impression of Wade's rookie year being outstanding. He was outstanding in the playoffs - increased scoring, assists and 3pt% over regular season leading team to more wins than anyone predicted. I projected that onto his entire rookie year.

It seems Wade's rookie season numbers weren't as high a bar as I was thinking. Well there is always LeBron's rookie year.


----------

