# Blazers @ Jazz Game Thread



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*Storylines:*

- Martell Webster out for 2 games with a strained back, joining Raef LaFrentz, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Darius Miles in Portland.

- Deron Williams matches up with co-05er Jarrett Jack, the biggest PG draft in some time.

- Ime Udoka said to get a shot to make the roster during the next few games after mourning the loss of a family member.

- Polar Opposites: Portland faces the new Westhead-esque scheme of Nelson one night, then the classical Sloan scheme the next. _Prediction:_ Portland doesnt score upwards of 120 tonight.

- Malglawful: Magloire started alongside Randolph during the last game and had 6 turnovers and little else. Let's hope for something more positive from the "former all-star"*.










*GAME ON!*







*(In the eastern conference).


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Sad Martell can't play, but it should be fun to see who steps up.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Prediction- Roy has a big night. He was much more aggressive in game 2 then in game 1. Nate might make him our go-to-guy tonight. I'd like to see him in the post more.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

LOL @ the "turnovers" image...im stealing it and will be using it on my other board. :clap: 

we will lose this game, most likely by double digits, but thats expected with our lineup.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Yay... turnover in the first posession!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Starting lineups:

*Jazz:*
PG- Deron Williams
SG- Ronnie Brewer
SF- Andrei Kirilenko
PF- Carlos Boozer
C- Mehmet Okur

*Blazers:*
PG- Jack
SG- BRoy
SF- Travis
PF- ZBo
C- Magloire


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Man, it almost seems like the refs conspire against Portland early on. It's tough to get any sort of momentum as a young team with traveling calls and offensive foul calls on the first two possessions. Sheesh.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Man, dig a hole every game!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Magloire in his first stint: 2 fouls, 2 turnovers, 0 points.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

udoka, future hall of famer


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Magloire in his first stint: 2 fouls, 2 turnovers, 0 points.



and great defense on okur


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

crowTrobot said:


> and great defense on okur



But let's not forget: he does charity work in Toronto.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

jamaal was an all star in the western conference, wasn't he? I thought it was when he was on the hornets, when they became a western conference team?

to answer my own question, it was when they were still an eastern conference team.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Again, why the **** does McMillan think a "big" line up works? Jamal and Zendon? Jamal and Zach? Joel and Zach? Wake the **** up!


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*First Quarter:*

*Highlights:*
- Zach Randolph with 6 points, 2 assists, and 1 rebound on 2-3 shooting. 
- Ime Udoka fights for a spot with 8 points on 4-5 shooting.

*Eyesores:*
- 5 minutes without baskets to close the quarter.
- 8 turnovers by Portland. They shot _12_ less shots than Utah.
- Turnovers to open the game on consecutive possessions.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Dixon must be 1-16 now in three games? Yikes, and they said he has spent all summer working on his shot!


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

jazz with 10 of 15 field goals in the paint


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Dixon is worthless garbage. 

Let's trade him for a load of fresh diarrhea. We wouldn't lose any height or offensive ability.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

ryanjend22 said:


> LOL @ the "turnovers" image...im stealing it and will be using it on my other board. :clap:
> 
> we will lose this game, most likely by double digits, but thats expected with our lineup.


I love this site. This is the first place or board I've ever belonged to. But......are there other boards where you can talk about the Blazers? I'm curious to check it out.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I love this site. This is the first place or board I've ever belonged to. But......are there other boards where you can talk about the Blazers? I'm curious to check it out.


No.

There are no others.

Curiosity killed the cat.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

at least zach is hustling


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

ProZach said:


> Dixon is worthless garbage.
> 
> Let's trade him for a load of fresh diarrhea. We wouldn't lose any height or offensive ability.


I consider fresh diarrhea much more offensive than Dixon. Thus, we improve offensively.

I also have a great aversion to fresh diarrhea and will do what I can to avoid having it come near me. That would preclude whomever the diarrhea is guarding from getting the ball as they wouldn't want it near them and we gain defensively as well.

Final analysis? A fair trade although it might make the Blazers difficult for some people to like.

:biggrin: 

Gramps...


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

It seems like Mcgloire is earning himself a spot on the bench. I was supportive of the trade but have been absolutely less than impressed with what I've "seen" and heard.

How 'bout we trade Mcgloire, Miles & Dixon for a case of overage spam? (then perhaps we can get that fresh diarrhea ProZach was talking about :biggrin: )

Gramps...


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> I consider fresh diarrhea much more offensive than Dixon. Thus, we improve offensively.
> 
> I also have a great aversion to fresh diarrhea and will do what I can to avoid having it come near me. That would preclude whomever the diarrhea is guarding from getting the ball as they wouldn't want it near them and we gain defensively as well.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure Dixon would get more assists than the diarrhea would.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm pretty sure Dixon would get more assists than the diarrhea would.


I'd have to consider it equal. Neither will get an assist and both are black holes when it comes to the ball - when Dixon gets it it doesn't come back out and when the diarrhea touches the ball, nobody wants it anymore.

Gramps...


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Dear Nate,

The slow down, bore us all silly, non passing, stand around, out dated, unimaginative, jr. collegesque, pound the ball, run the shot clock down, allow the defense to get possition, waste of talent offense that you somehow think will get us wins needs to go.

Love, 
The Happy fat guy


P.S. 
I told you so.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> I'm pretty sure Dixon would get more assists than the diarrhea would.



Nate would never have diarrhea on his team, it likes to run too much for his style. Gas wouldn't work either because it likes to pass. Now constipation on the other hand is right up his alley. Doesn't move, just sorta is there and is hard to deal with


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

ProZach said:


> Dixon is worthless garbage.
> 
> Let's trade him for a load of fresh diarrhea. We wouldn't lose any height or offensive ability.


And it would improve our running game.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Dear Nate,
> 
> The slow down, bore us all silly, non passing, stand around, out dated, unimaginative, jr. collegesque, pound the ball, run the shot clock down, allow the defense to get possition, waste of talent offense that you somehow think will get us wins needs to go.
> 
> ...


What he said.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

diarrhea.. i mean dixon for 3!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

assists seem to be a bit difficult for the team to get


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Nate would never have diarrhea on his team, it likes to run too much for his style. Gas wouldn't work either because it likes to pass. Now constipation on the other hand is right up his alley. Doesn't move, just sorta is there and is hard to deal with


 :cheers: 

BTW, when is Antonio going to stop confusing himself? Man this guy is just retarded. Does he have to say "Pootland Trailblazas" every time. Just call them the Blazers, or Portland.

Juan Brickson still chucking them up.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

ProZach said:


> Dixon is worthless garbage.
> 
> Let's trade him for a load of fresh diarrhea. We wouldn't lose any height or offensive ability.


Best post EVER :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazers catching up... Roy having a solid game. He does need to work on this free throw shooting, however.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

Roy, while having a good game seems to have reverted to his summer league free throw form.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Big 3 by Chase. 

Wow, Roy has already played 32 minutes.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Why can't Roy hit his free throws?

Got to love that Kirilenko line: 5 rebs, 5 assists, 5 blocks. No steals though - shame on him.

Millsap seems like a keeper for them. Hamilton and Udoka are earning their keep. Not so either of our very expensive plodding centers.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Zendon having a good game, atleast from the line. Had a feeling we weren't going to do good this game..


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

It'd sure be nice to have Miles, Webster, LaFrentz and even Aldridge in there tonight. Portland just didn't have the personnel to compete tonight.

Outlaw and Dixon don't seem to be players who help the team when they're out on the floor. Their defense isn't good, and they were a combined 5-20 tonight. 

_5-20!_

Without them, our percentage as a team climbs to 46 percent... not bad.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Samuel said:


> It'd sure be nice to have Miles, Webster, LaFrentz and even Aldridge in there tonight. Portland just didn't have the personnel to compete tonight.
> 
> Outlaw and Dixon don't seem to be players who help the team when they're out on the floor. Their defense isn't good, and they were a combined 5-20 tonight.
> 
> ...


They should get rid of both to be quite honest. I would have really liked to see what Martell would have done tonight or even tomorrow night. Roy had a pretty good game, but he needs to get those free throws down. Zendon Hamilton seems like a guy who has produced for us since the preseason started, and Magloire has been a huge dissapointment thus far.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> It'd sure be nice to have Miles, Webster, LaFrentz and even Aldridge in there tonight. Portland just didn't have the personnel to compete tonight.
> 
> Outlaw and Dixon don't seem to be players who help the team when they're out on the floor. Their defense isn't good, and they were a combined 5-20 tonight.
> 
> ...


maybe webster lafrentz and aldridge, but not miles.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I know I have talked about this in other threads, but when watching the games so far, what I noticed is that Magloire and Zbo get in each others way and don't play well together because Magloire has no outside game, and often like Theo last year, ends up getting the ball at the top of the key. If Magloire plays he needs to be put in a position to succeed, which means being the "inside the paint" guy, teamed with a guy who can hit a shot out to 15'. Zbo can do it, but so much of his game is really oriented to the paint, it doesn't make sense for him to be teamed with Jamaal. Now team Jamaal with say, Raef Lafrentz, and you have a better functioning combo. Jamaal needs to receive the ball down low where he will have to put the ball on the floor very little in order to succeed.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Hap said:


> maybe webster lafrentz and aldridge, but not miles.


Are you saying Outlaw and Udoka are better options at small forward than Darius Miles?

Just asking.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Are you saying Outlaw and Udoka are better options at small forward than Darius Miles?
> 
> Just asking.


No, but Webster is.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Samuel said:


> Are you saying Outlaw and Udoka are better options at small forward than Darius Miles?
> 
> Just asking.


Im saying that Webster is. Miles, who had MINOR knee surgery back *10*+ months ago, is STILL having issues..because he's a pile of **** who didn't do **** over the summer, came into camp out of shape and showed that he did nothing to improve his game over the summer (or his health). He's still a detriment to the team as a TEAM, and his on court talent (and consistency with said talent) isn't enough to make up for his negative talents.

so yes, I am saying that Webster brings more.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

GrandpaBlaze said:


> I consider fresh diarrhea much more offensive than Dixon. Thus, we improve offensively.
> 
> 
> I also have a great aversion to fresh diarrhea and will do what I can to avoid having it come near me. That would preclude whomever the diarrhea is guarding from getting the ball as they wouldn't want it near them and we gain defensively as well.


Interesting take. Tis' true that diarrhea is best to be avoided at all times, however it is characterized by unusually soft or liquid bowel movements, enabling opposing players to run through diarrhea's porous defense like a hot knife through butter, or simple jump over it. Either way, unless we bargain for a substantial amount or place said diarrhea at critical areas on the court, we will most likely suffer on the defensive end. Still, valid points about the aroma issue. 

Tough call, glad I'm not the GM.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Is it just me or is Magloire having one of the worst preseasons of any starting Blazer in recent memory?

Also, Paul Milsap would have been nice with our 30th pick in the draft this year. For how much everyone seems to value hustle and rebounding he was sure overlooked by nearly every team despite leading all of the NCAAs in rebounding for three straight years.

Oh well... Joel Freeland's gonna be a star, right?


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Wow, did you guys have all of your starters except Randolph and Magloire hurt tonight or what?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Wow, did you guys have all of your starters except Randolph and Magloire hurt tonight or what?


Nope. We're just bad.



Ed O.


----------



## AK-47 (Jul 7, 2005)

Or... the jazz are just good


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

Actually I think the Blazers won't be toooo bad this year. In other words, most people have them winning maybe like 20-25 games. I'm calling for 35. You guys have some talent and a good coach.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Actually I think the Blazers won't be toooo bad this year. In other words, most people have them winning maybe like 20-25 games. I'm calling for 35. You guys have some talent and a good coach.


they'll start off slow, thats for sure. Tonites game appeared (since I didn't see it) to be a case of Jerry Sloans offense being Jerry Sloans offense, and our team having no real good backup PF (I don't care, Zendon isn't that good), and poor handling of the ball..on top of no Webster, LaFrentz and Aldridge. 

But I think we'll improve. It's pre-season and they're still figuring things out. I just hope it doesn't take 40 games to get there.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

AK-47 said:


> Or... the jazz are just good


No. I'm pretty sure the Blazers are just bad.

Ed O.


----------



## unluckyseventeen (Feb 5, 2006)

The Blazers just weren't playing any defense. I think about 30-40% of the shots were uncontested. The Jazz were also playing great defense until the 3rd.. they're implementing a new, odd defense and it worked like a charm.

I was at the game... by the way.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Samuel said:


> *Storylines:*
> 
> - Martell Webster out for 2 games with a strained back, joining Raef LaFrentz, LaMarcus Aldridge, and Darius Miles in Portland.
> 
> ...


Great, Jamal can complete with Darius now as the mascot for Turnovers. If that fails he can do commercials for cherriOS, OreO's or "I'm a big fat waste of space who shouldn't have been traded for Steve Blake!" :curse:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

unluckyseventeen said:


> The Blazers just weren't playing any defense. I think about 30-40% of the shots were uncontested. The Jazz were also playing great defense until the 3rd.. they're implementing a new, odd defense and it worked like a charm.
> 
> I was at the game... by the way.



sounds like last years issues. Show some signs of growth (the first two games did show life) and then they'd play a game and start off crappy, not play defense and show signs of regression.

youth is a funny thing that way.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Great, Jamal can complete with Darius now as the mascot for Turnovers. If that fails he can do commercials for cherriOS, OreO's or "I'm a big fat waste of space who shouldn't have been traded for Steve Blake!" :curse:


steve ain't exactly lighting it up in Milwaukee you know.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah the sooner we can trade jamaal the better you can tell he dont want to be here, I have said this since the interview where they asked him what he left about the trade.....not pleased. As for miles can we get the league to void his contract? Seriously this is the slowest recovery from MINOR knee surgery I have EVER heard of!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Utherhimo said:


> yeah the sooner we can trade jamaal the better you can tell he dont want to be here, I have said this since the interview where they asked him what he left about the trade.....not pleased. As for miles can we get the league to void his contract? Seriously this is the slowest recovery from MINOR knee surgery I have EVER heard of!


So do you think that Miles would be helping this team, if he were playing?

If not: why does it matter he's gone? We're not going to save money by waiving him ("voiding" a contract simply doesn't happen for these types of situations).

If so: why should we get rid of him when he might come back and help this team?

Ed O.


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

I love the ESPN Hollinger Stats.. Heres what they said about Miles..
"Darius Miles 2005-06 season: Talent is a prerequisite for NBA success, but it doesn't guarantee it. For proof, just look at Miles. He took another step on his road to basketball oblivion in 2005-06, posting .." with a score of 12.83 ranking.
On Webster...
"Martell Webster 2005-06 season: In his first year out of high school, Webster looked like, well, a kid who just came to the NBA from high school. He finished the campaign shooting 39.9 percent -- not good for a rookie." but still got a 14.01 ranking - better than Miles. :biggrin: 
With a year + working on his knee, Miles needs to get it together.
Miles is out of it mentally. He's had his shouting matches with the coach and showed up late for practice. I say trade him. He's a bad image to the team.
Juan Dixon 4-13 FGs, 26 min, and 9 points!!!! uke:


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Remember people to put Magloire in perspective. If he doesn't work out, he comes off the books this year. It also means more playing time for Lemarcus Aldridge, who is a major piece of the future.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

unluckyseventeen said:


> Actually I think the Blazers won't be toooo bad this year. In other words, most people have them winning maybe like 20-25 games. I'm calling for 35. You guys have some talent and a good coach.


There is no way they will win 35 games. 30 games would be great for this squad.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Remember people to put Magloire in perspective. If he doesn't work out, he comes off the books this year. It also means more playing time for Lemarcus Aldridge, who is a major piece of the future.


Aldridge is years from being an NBA contributor.

PT for Aldridge means losses.

Give the PT to Travis and Zendon.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Aldridge is years from being an NBA contributor.
> 
> PT for Aldridge means losses.
> 
> Give the PT to Travis and Zendon.


It's not like we're going to win a lot of games anyways. And why give PT to a guy like Zendon who is nothing more than a journeyman?

Zendon was just invited to camp as an extra guy to bang with. Chances of making the roster are slim to none, and Aldridge will take his PT when he is healthy again. And so far, Travis doesn't deserve the PT, he has been horrendous.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I thought we could win around 32 games, but I'm going to have to revise that to 26 - 28. I'm disturbed by the team's inability to play defense.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

I was going through the play by play and found that when Zach was in the game the Blazers were only outscored by 10 points. When Brandon Roy was in the game the Blazers were outscored by 13 points.

Since Zach sucks, B Roy must really suck right? Oh wait, it's just a small sample size, nevermind.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Aldridge is years from being an NBA contributor.
> 
> PT for Aldridge means losses.
> 
> Give the PT to Travis and Zendon.



Let's look at the NBA big men drafted in the first round, shall we?

1. Andrea Bargnani: Andrea played in the Euroleague last year, and while he's likely to get 20-30 minutes a game this year, he needs at least a year to adjust to the game as an international.

2. Tyrus Thomas: Tyrus Thomas wasn't on anyone's radar last year, and now, after only a year in college, he's in the NBA. People say he's *very raw*, and it might take him a few years to adapt.

3. Shelden Williams: Probably the most NBA-ready big man in the draft. That's 4-years of college at Duke. Problem is, he's 6-8: too small to be a center, not athletic enough to be a versatile power forward. At the #2 pick, in terms of immediate production, Portland could still have done better (and did)

4. Patrick O'Bryant: YEARS away.

5. Saer Sene: Please. He just learned basketball.

Everyone else: (Simmons, Armstrong, Pecherov, Boone, Freeland) One-dimensional, small, or really raw. Pick a couple.

*Compared to the above-mentioned centers...* Portland got the best combination of athleticism (almost went pro after high school), offensive-skillset (unlike others, actually has a few moves), size (moves like a guard at 6-11), and NBA-readiness. Let's not forget that Texas had a load of guards and guys ahead of him... if he were on a team that was less of a championship contender, his increased numbers would have shooed him in at the #1 spot.

Will Aldridge compete for Rookie of the year? No. But he's probably the most well-prepared big drafted in the top-5 to do so. And let's remember, it's only the second game of the Randolph/Magloire experiment and it sounds like it's not working out. With the new teams that can run-and-gun like the Suns, Aldridge might be that versitile guy who can actually get up and down the floor with them.

Don't count this guy out. Compared to Outlaw, Webster, Woods, Telfair, Monia, and Khryapa, he's certainly ready to contribute.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Let's look at the NBA big men drafted in the first round, shall we?
> 
> 1. Andrea Bargnani: Andrea played in the Euroleague last year, and while he's likely to get 20-30 minutes a game this year, he needs at least a year to adjust to the game as an international.
> 
> ...


Yeah I'd like to see a lineup of Jack, Roy, Webster, Randolph, Aldridge or even Roy, Webster, Miles, Randolph, Aldridge. I think after a month or so playing together to build some chemistry and work out some of the kinks that come commensurate with being a rookie (Webster and Jack count as rooks as well), these would be pretty solid lineups.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> Aldridge is years from being an NBA contributor.
> 
> PT for Aldridge means losses.
> 
> Give the PT to Travis and Zendon.



We are going to have to agree to disagree. Years away from being an NBA contributor? I actually would bet barring injuries, Lemarcus Aldridge will legitimately challenge Zbo and other front line guys for playing time. He already has many skills they do not. His shot blocking and 7'5" wingspan are something the other players will never have, as well as his ability to run the floor. He will have to get more physical, but so does every other rookie. 

As for playing time for Aldridge means losses, like you can blame all the losses on him? Or they were going to win a lot more with him in the lineup? Either way they are going to lose games. The question is, are they moving forward or reverse?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

MARIS61 said:


> Aldridge is years from being an NBA contributor.
> 
> PT for Aldridge means losses.
> 
> Give the PT to Travis and Zendon.


Based on what? His 15/9 last year or his pretty nice summer league? Face it, Aldridge can contribute NOW. He has a better post up game and jump shot than Joel and Magloire, he can run the floor, block shots and rebound.

Travis has shown nothing thus far. 

Aldridge can provide much more than Travis at this point. For now, give the 15-18 backup PF minutes to Zendon and work Aldridge in slowly.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

It's going to be a loooooong season.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> It's going to be a loooooong season.



You had to know they weren't going to win very much. As long as they work hard and try not to bore the hell out of us on offense I'll be just fine.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Nate Dogg said:


> I love the ESPN Hollinger Stats.. Heres what they said about Miles..
> "Darius Miles 2005-06 season: Talent is a prerequisite for NBA success, but it doesn't guarantee it. For proof, just look at Miles. He took another step on his road to basketball oblivion in 2005-06, posting .." with a score of 12.83 ranking.
> On Webster...
> "Martell Webster 2005-06 season: In his first year out of high school, Webster looked like, well, a kid who just came to the NBA from high school. He finished the campaign shooting 39.9 percent -- not good for a rookie." but still got a 14.01 ranking - better than Miles. :biggrin:
> ...


Nate Dogg waz up!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> It's going to be a loooooong season.


At least we'll get to see the young guys this year. Whatever the outcome, I'm going to enjoy watching Roy, Jack, and Webster get regular minutes. Add in LaMarcus at some point and it'll be that much better.


----------

