# Jaynes Article..



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

From: PDX Tribune

Here's a portion on next summer's draft possibilities....



> The e-mails are coming in at a hearty pace with suggestions about who the Trail Blazers may want to select with their expected high pick in the 2006 draft.
> 
> I want this to be a seasonlong project, so keep them coming as your opinions rise and fall about certain players.
> 
> ...


Also, found this to be an interesting comment........which I 100% agree with, by the way.....



> ....The Trail Blazers’ Steve Blake has given me faith that it’s still possible to find a point guard who seems to care more about setting up others’ shots than his own. The NBA is so full of point guards who are constantly setting up their own games, it’s downright refreshing to see a guy who works hard to get his team into its offense.
> 
> If you haven’t noticed the way the Blazers suddenly are moving the ball and moving bodies on offense, you aren’t paying attention. And you can’t totally attribute that to Sebastian Telfair’s absence. Remember, Darius Miles has been out, too. So, *Zach Randolph has been the only me-first player on the court for Portland. One of those, a team can handle. Two or three is a major problem.*


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Yep, Steve Blake gets my vote for MVP so far.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Interesting tid-bit..

With Miles, the team averaged just under 16 turnovers a game. even if you take out the 2 big turnover games (23 and 24) they're still at 14.7

Without Miles and Telfair (and the new savior Blake starting) the team has averaged 14 turnovers a game.

Without Miles (but with telfair starting) the team averaged 11.66 turnovers a game.

hm, that seems contradictory. 

With Telfair (and no miles) the team averaged assists 14 assists (but had Webster starting and Zach was crap).

Without Telfair (and Miles) the team averaged: just over 20 assist a game (although thats tainted a bit with two 26 assist games, where in one Blake had 13 assists and Zach had 8, and another where Blake had 4 and Jack had 8). Take out those 56 assists, and it's more like 18. With telfair (and miles) it's 16.65.

I think a little too much is being made into how the team is playing now and the PG play. Much more should be made out of the fact Zach is playing much better, and they're getting production out of their SG now (look back at the box scores, and tell me that having a SG get you 3-7 ppg is the same as what Dixon is doing).


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I think a little too much is being made into how the team is playing now and the PG play. Much more should be made out of the fact Zach is playing much better, and they're getting production out of their SG now (look back at the box scores, and tell me that having a SG get you 3-7 ppg is the same as what Dixon is doing).



On second thought, perhaps too much is being made of the stats you've related? Different opponents, different tempos, different results, etc., etc., etc.

I still do think, though, that a strong reason Z-Bo and Dixon are performing so well is because Blake makes it a Point (pun intended) to help make them successful. I believe that there's a direct correlation between when/where they get the ball....and what they end up doing with it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> On second thought, perhaps too much is being made of the stats you've related? Different opponents, different tempos, different results, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> I still do think, though, that a strong reason Z-Bo and Dixon are performing so well is because Blake makes it a Point (pun intended) to help make them successful. I believe that there's a direct correlation between when/where they get the ball....and what they end up doing with it.


good point, but is Zach playing better because he's healthier, and trying harder? One could argue that it's more that, and a SG who's taking some of the offense away from him, than the PG play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> good point, but is Zach playing better because he's healthier, and trying harder? One could argue that it's more that, and a SG who's taking some of the offense away from him, than the PG play.


Watching some of the Blazers/Griz game right now. One could _still_ argue that Blake is a heckuva PG.

Ahhh, well, as you say.......toe-may-toe....toe-mah-toe.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Watching some of the Blazers/Griz game right now. One could _still_ argue that Blake is a heckuva PG.
> 
> Ahhh, well, as you say.......toe-may-toe....toe-mah-toe.


one could also argue that Blake ran the team much better than Jack did tonite, but really considering the sub-par games by Zach and the SG (and a thin C spot) that the teams offensive flow looked sub-par, and it was no fault of the PG.

Hm, so in other words, Blake runs the team basically the same as Telfair does, just that recently he had more offensive help.

I think Blake runs the team much better than Jack, but Ive said that Jack doesn't run the team all that great. But Blake and Telfair run the team basically the same, and each have their positives and negatives.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> ....Hm, so in other words, Blake runs the team basically the same as Telfair does, just that recently he had more offensive help..



OK, Mr. Hap, we could probably go on and on like this until the Blazers win a championship 

Here's my basic bottom-line on the whole situation: 

I don't believe that Telfair is ready to start and lead the team. In fact, I think it would be unfair to him to expect that he could. I think Nate realizes this.

I also believe that, *in the short-term*, Nate has concluded that Blake is in a position to be that leader. My "gut" feeling also tells me that Nate will bring Telfair off the bench for a period of time -- perhaps, even the rest of the season.

Secondly, when I read that little blurb about Telfair stating that he's "sure" he'll be starting again on his return, then reading Nate's response to that........well, the wheels began to spin about another potential "Ruben situaion" on management's collective hands. At that point I began to wonder if, for the sake of team continuity and peace, management would maybe start to think in "what if...." terms regarding potentially trading Bassy.

I sincerely hope I'm (and probably am) wrong in that thinking. I *do* like Telfair's "unquestionable potential". However, I *do* like the way the team is playing overall right now. As I had stated many times earlier, I think a lot of that has to do with Blake's confidence, leadership abilities, and skill at getting the other guys involved....even though he is regarded as a basic journeyman-type, or role player.

There, that's my stance in a nutshell. :yes:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> OK, Mr. Hap, we could probably go on and on like this until the Blazers win a championship
> 
> Here's my basic bottom-line on the whole situation:
> 
> ...


how do you figure? he started him because he's better at play making than Jack is, and Telfair got injured. 



> My "gut" feeling also tells me that Nate will bring Telfair off the bench for a period of time -- perhaps, even the rest of the season.


he might, but he might not. He's not playing significantly better than Telfair to make that declaration.


> Secondly, when I read that little blurb about Telfair stating that he's "sure" he'll be starting again on his return, then reading Nate's response to that........well, the wheels began to spin about another potential "Ruben situaion" on management's collective hands.


cept that, ooh..Telfair was the starter and it's unusual for starters to lose their starting job becaue of an injury..and most players will say they expect their starting job back when they come back because..well, every player would expect it back. Even Blake would if he was made starter at the start of the season.



> At that point I began to wonder if, for the sake of team continuity and peace, management would maybe start to think in "what if...." terms regarding potentially trading Bassy.


then at this point, the management would have to be retarded.



> I sincerely hope I'm (and probably am) wrong in that thinking. I *do* like Telfair's "unquestionable potential". However, I *do* like the way the team is playing overall right now.


which has little to do with the PG play...see: Last nights game. 

blake played no different than he did before, but guys were missing shots and not rotating good, or playing defense. 

The biggest difference in how the team was playing was Zach playnig much better and the starting SG playing tons better.



> As I had stated many times earlier, I think a lot of that has to do with Blake's confidence, leadership abilities, and skill at getting the other guys involved....even though he is regarded as a basic journeyman-type, or role player.
> 
> There, that's my stance in a nutshell. :yes:


he's doing his role, and doing it good. But they wouldn't be looking at trading Telfair because of it. They'd have to be beyond stupid to think that, after *7* games. 

It's that thinking that gets us the LaRue Martin's of the world.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think Telfair will be coming off the bench when he returns so as to not disrupt the chemistry we have going. As long as we are successful it might remain that way, but if Telfair shows as adept at running the team as Blake then he'll probably return the the starting position. Not losing the starting position to injury I don't think applies here as much as usual since we are a very young team trying to find it's identity.

Telfair isn't going to like coming off the bench, but he doesn't have much say in the matter except for how he plays. He'll try hard to show he deserves to be the starter which may be good or it may be bad. I don't think there is anyway we'll trade Telfair but you can never say never.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> how do you figure? he started him because he's better at play making than Jack is, and Telfair got injured.


Nate, himself, said that Telfair won't "automatically" be starting upon his return. Then, he went on to say that Telfair still has much to learn. Do the math.



> he might, but he might not. He's not playing significantly better than Telfair to make that declaration.


Nonethless, as related above, he said what he said.




> cept that, ooh..Telfair was the starter and it's unusual for starters to lose their starting job becaue of an injury..and most players will say they expect their starting job back when they come back because..well, every player would expect it back. Even Blake would if he was made starter at the start of the season.


The only player that I've seen as a 'lock" to be a continual starter is Zach. Again, Nate has gone on record indicating that this is an "evaluative" season. Sure, Telfair got hurt, and in "most" cases, players don't lose their starting position because of injury. I haven't really considered Telfair as being a "lock" in that role, though. You can't count last season because Nate wasn't here. In fact, Nate said at the beginning of this season that the entire (starters) slate has been wiped clean.



> then at this point, the management would have to be retarded.


...and, your point is? 



> which has little to do with the PG play...see: Last nights game.
> 
> blake played no different than he did before, but guys were missing shots and not rotating good, or playing defense.
> 
> The biggest difference in how the team was playing was Zach playnig much better and the starting SG playing tons better.


Didn't get to "see" last night's game. However, looking at the boxscore, it appeared as if Blake played decentl......this, while the team effectively played witout two other starters (Joel and Darius). I still maintain that Z-Bo's and Juan's improvements are very much attributable to Blake's ability and, perhaps more importantly, *determination* to get them the ball when/where they want it. In my recollection, Z-Bo was pretty clear about Blake being able to do that.




> he's doing his role, and doing it good. But they wouldn't be looking at trading Telfair because of it. They'd have to be beyond stupid to think that, after *7* games.
> 
> It's that thinking that gets us the LaRue Martin's of the world.


As I said, I am probably wrong in that assumption. However, again, I *am* maintaining (along with many others) that Telfair is currently a not-ready-for-prime-time player. This has become very evident to me as I continue to watch the team improve and mature with Blake at the helm.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> As I said, I am probably wrong in that assumption. However, again, I *am* maintaining (along with many others) that Telfair is currently a not-ready-for-prime-time player. This has become very evident to me as I continue to watch the team improve and mature with Blake at the helm.


You're attributing things to Blake that aren't really done because of him. He's playing no different than Telfair did, just that the team as a whole was playing better, especially in the SG and PF positions.

It might becoming very "evident" to you, but 7 games does not a permanent starter make.

You'll notice I have not said that telfair has to be starting right away, but that in the long run (this season) he should be the starter. 

It's unfair to be attributing positives to Blake when it's not necessarily because of his doing. It's the same way that people attribute negatives to Sheed, that had nothing to do with him (like being tossed in game 1 of the WCF's, which was dumb, being the *reason* they lost game 1). 

but whatever, continue wth what you want. First you were gung ho for Jack, and now Blake. Why should I take this seriously, when it's almost like you have an irrational dislike for Telfair, BECAUSE he's not perfect now (not that Blake and Jack are)?

I can find a couple games where Telfair had as good, if not better, games than Blake has had, but didn't have the support of a decent SG. You guys act as though that really has nothing to do with how the team is playing now, when it has more to do with how things are going.

last nights game was a prime example of how Blake looks better when the team plays better, but when the team plays bad, it shows that he's playing basically the same as Telfair.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

As stated before Dixon and Blake knows each other really well so that has help the play of the team. Telfair may not click as well with Dixon and Nate has said he doesn't like to have both Telfair and Dixon on the floor together because of their height so unless Webster gets better quickly or we trade for another SG we might see both of them starting for quite a while.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> You're attributing things to Blake that aren't really done because of him. He's playing no different than Telfair did, just that the team as a whole was playing better, especially in the SG and PF positions.


Why would Z-Bo say what he said (about the improvements at *both* Guard positions), then??



> It's unfair to be attributing positives to Blake when it's not necessarily because of his doing.


My comments are simply based upon recent team results.



> but whatever, continue wth what you want. First you were gung ho for Jack, and now Blake. Why should I take this seriously, when it's almost like you have an irrational dislike for Telfair, BECAUSE he's not perfect now (not that Blake and Jack are)?


I'll repeat what I said my previous post's statement: _"I still maintain that Z-Bo's and Juan's improvements are very much attributable to Blake's ability and, perhaps more importantly, determination to get them the ball when/where they want it. In my recollection, Z-Bo was pretty clear about Blake being able to do that."_

Meaning, again, my recent views on Blake are due to _performance and results_ as opposed to my "gut feelings" or otherwise. I really don't have anything personal against Telfair, other than the fact that it sure seemed to me the team had struggled offensively while he was the starter. Considering how this current squad is performing, that shouldn't be the case.

True, I supposed I did jump on the Jack bandwagon earlier.....simply because of the fact that I felt the team needed a change in how they were doing things offensively. Jack _appeared_ to be doing well in that regard earlier in the season. Since then, though, I've come to realize that he needs additional seasoning, as well.




> I can find a couple games where Telfair had as good, if not better, games than Blake has had, but didn't have the support of a decent SG. You guys act as though that really has nothing to do with how the team is playing now, when it has more to do with how things are going.
> 
> last nights game was a prime example of how Blake looks better when the team plays better, but when the team plays bad, it shows that he's playing basically the same as Telfair.


I'm just really curious to see if Blake can continue to hold his own as a starter. In fact, we may all realize when Bassy comes back, if he does play backup to Blake, Telfair may start to dominate other team's second units (perhaps, such to the degree Ruben has) and revel in the role - while continuing to mature - for the unforeseeable future. Shoot, it _may_ end up being a win-win after all. At least for awhile.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Why would Z-Bo say what he said (about the improvements at *both* Guard positions), then??


what happens when you have a SG who can pass decently, shoots better and doesn't just camp outside the 3 point line?

it spreads the offense, and makes it so Zach isn't doubled. 



> My comments are simply based upon recent team results.


it's never wise to make statements based on such a small sample. 



> I'll repeat what I said my previous post's statement: _"I still maintain that Z-Bo's and Juan's improvements are very much attributable to Blake's ability and, perhaps more importantly, determination to get them the ball when/where they want it. In my recollection, Z-Bo was pretty clear about Blake being able to do that."_


Juan hasn't improved, he's gotten more minutes. and it playing with the first string a lot more. zach is getting healthier, and as what people have said, buying into the system more.



> Meaning, again, my recent views on Blake are due to _performance and results_ as opposed to my "gut feelings" or otherwise. I really don't have anything personal against Telfair, other than the fact that it sure seemed to me the team had struggled offensively while he was the starter. Considering how this current squad is performing, that shouldn't be the case.



thats the same thinking that thought that the team ran better with Jack, when it clearly didn't. Again, you're comparing how a PG is running the team with a starting SG who isn't much of a starter vs one who a much better starter. The assist #'s aren't enough as much as people think, and the turnovers are actually up.



> True, I supposed I did jump on the Jack bandwagon earlier.....simply because of the fact that I felt the team needed a change in how they were doing things offensively. Jack _appeared_ to be doing well in that regard earlier in the season. Since then, though, I've come to realize that he needs additional seasoning, as well.
> 
> I'm just really curious to see if Blake can continue to hold his own as a starter. In fact, we may all realize when Bassy comes back, if he does play backup to Blake, Telfair may start to dominate other team's second units (perhaps, such to the degree Ruben has) and revel in the role - while continuing to mature - for the unforeseeable future. Shoot, it _may_ end up being a win-win after all. At least for awhile.



I think some of us are putting blake on a pedastool thats a little too high, and partly doing it because they're looking for any reason to dog on Telfair. I could understand if the team was playing good with Webster or Monia and Blake in the starting lineup, and Zach playing sub-par. but the fact of the matter is, you're comparing how a player is doing in different scenarios. Blake is doing nothing more or less than what Telfair was doing when he was playing (and was the only decent starting guard).


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap, I don't believe I ever heard these types of remarks from Z-Bo or Nate before:

From: The Big O



> Two consecutive road wins for the first time in a year? Scoring 100 points for the first time this season? A 20-0 run in vaunted Arco Arena?
> 
> Zach Randolph was quick with the answer.
> 
> ...


Small sampling, or not, nothing, since these remarks made after the Sacto game, has caused me to believe the team won't continue to play well with the same lineup.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Hap, I don't believe I ever heard these types of remarks from Z-Bo or Nate before:
> 
> From: The Big O
> Small sampling, or not, nothing, since these remarks made after the Sacto game, has caused me to believe the team won't continue to play well with the same lineup.


To me, that means great PG AND SG. As in the combo of the two. Again, Im not saying that he should start right away, but you're grossly overrating how good he's playing, and grossly underrating how important it is to have a decent SG play beside him.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> To me, that means great PG AND SG. As in the combo of the two. Again, Im not saying that he should start right away, but you're grossly overrating how good he's playing, and grossly underrating how important it is to have a decent SG play beside him.



I meant to mention the other thing that Zach mentioned in This article...



> ....And now with the offense finally jump-started, and the team experiencing extended success for the first time in more than a month, even the Blazers players are starting to take notice. Zach Randolph on Monday said the biggest difference is the play of the Blazers' guards, who are *now* "getting the ball where it's *supposed* to be."


Either this predominantly means Blake, or Juan sure has made a lot of improvements since the beginning of the season.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

...and, speaking of Telfair as being THE starter (or not)...

From: The Big O



> "The combination of Blake and Dixon -- they are young guys in the sense of years in the league, but they have played together," McMillan said. "There is a comfort zone there between them, and they are more experienced in terms of running a team and playing off each other."
> 
> Whether that chemistry is enough to unseat Telfair as the starting point guard remains to be seen. McMillan has made it clear that Telfair is a valued commodity among management, which used the No. 13 pick in the 2004 NBA draft to select Telfair out of high school. *McMillan also has said that Telfair's appointment as starter at season's start had as much to do with his credentials as his play....*


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> I meant to mention the other thing that Zach mentioned in This article...
> 
> 
> 
> Either this predominantly means Blake, or Juan sure has made a lot of improvements since the beginning of the season.


so, zach is happy that they're getting the ball where it's "supposed to be"...despite the fact he was shooting more outside shots because he wouldn't go in the paint?

I don't know if I'd be taking Zach's word as proof just yet.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> ...and, speaking of Telfair as being THE starter (or not)...
> 
> From: The Big O


not sure why you keep bringing up vague quotes by the coach, as proof of anything. saying it had as much to do with his credentials as it does his play, doesn't really prove anything. If Blake was better from the start, he would've started. If he's better from now on, he'll play.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> not sure why you keep bringing up vague quotes by the coach, as proof of anything..



Quotes, in and of themsleves, aren't necessarily proof of anything. However, when you begin to stack them is when you can potentially find trends and general thought patterns.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Quotes, in and of themsleves, aren't necessarily proof of anything. However, when you begin to stack them is when you can potentially find trends and general thought patterns.


yah, a trend that zach likes getting the ball more, and a trend that shows that the SG position is being played far better than anyone did when Telfair was playing.

again, your statements aren't exactly showing anything, and the fact of the matter is I still haven't said that telfair should start right when he gets back, but that Blake isn't playing much better (if at all) than he is, but that the SG spot and the PF spot improving in play (how often did Zach make as many smart passes PERIOD when telfair was playing? Thats not because of the PG, but because he's understanding the system better). 

Telfair shouldn't be included in trades because of how Blake is playing, because he's not playing that much better or different realistically, than Telfair is, and his ceiling is incredibly short. 

I just can't wait for the blake bandwagon to leave town, and people realize what he is. A good role player, who's playing his role excellently. Thats what you want in a role player. I could understand all this crap if it was liek last year with joel and theo, when joel was obviously out-playing theo and theo was injured and basically playing at 10% of theo. Telfair wasn't, and Blake isn't obviously outplaying him. 

But if you want to keep attributing things to Blake that aren't due to him, go ahead.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> ..I just can't wait for the blake bandwagon to leave town, and people realize what he is. A good role player, who's playing his role excellently..



What, exactly, deems him a "role" player? The fact that he really didn't get a chance in Washington? Aren't these _labels_ somewhat subjective?

Me? I'm seeing results and, buddy, I currently like what I see.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> What, exactly, deems him a "role" player? The fact that he really didn't get a chance in Washington? Aren't these _labels_ somewhat subjective?


a role player is someone who plays his role when called upon. Blake is one, so is viktor, ruben, jack, and theo.


> Me? I'm seeing results and, buddy, I currently like what I see.


Good for you. But you're attributing things to him that aren't attributable soley to him. You can like the results all you like, but that doesn't mean that he's the cause of it. I don't know why you're discounting the improvement in the SG spot as much as you are, or the change in Zach's game.

Again, notice that Blake had basically the same game he's had all the time Telfairs been out, but Zach had a sub-par game..and they lost.

gosh, I thought that Blake was causing these results all by his lonesome.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> You can like the results all you like, but that doesn't mean that he's the cause of it..



...conversely, it doen't mean he's not, either.

Nonetheless, I'm certainly enjoying the team's improved overall play....irrespective of where it's attributable.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Hap said:


> I think some of us are putting blake on a pedastool thats a little too high, and partly doing it because they're looking for any reason to dog on Telfair.


when you say "some of us," who do you mean? me? EdO? ABM? the only person I've seen on this board who seems to have a really anti-Telfair agenda has been tlong, and he hasn't really been that active in the debate, from what I've seen. 

the rest of us just want to win, with whatever point guard gets the job done. 



Hap said:


> Blake is doing nothing more or less than what Telfair was doing when he was playing (and was the only decent starting guard).


you keep saying this, but it's plainly not true. 

as a starter: 

Blake's averaging 5.9 assists a game to Telfair's 4.3. 

Blake is shooting at a 43.5% clip, to Telfair's 38.9%.

Blake is right at 1 turnover a game, to Telfair's average of 1.9.

Blake's defense has plainly been better than Telfair's. 

Blake has played 3 of his last 7 starts without Przybilla. he's played all of those games without our second or best player, Miles. yet he's been the PG on a team that is winning at a much higher percent than it was under Telfair. 

so how do you see them to be playing at the same level? I just don't see it.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> when you say "some of us," who do you mean? me? EdO? ABM? the only person I've seen on this board who seems to have a really anti-Telfair agenda has been tlong, and he hasn't really been that active in the debate, from what I've seen.


thats mostly because all he can counter with is his same old tired crap that even he knows is old and tired crap.


> the rest of us just want to win, with whatever point guard gets the job done.


I do too, but when it's not clear that the PG is causing it, and he's not much better (if at all) than the guy who won the starting spot, it's not a given that the guy starting now is the one who's the best in the long run.



> you keep saying this, but it's plainly not true.
> 
> as a starter:
> 
> Blake's averaging 5.9 assists a game to Telfair's 4.3.


if you take out the 13 (which has been proven to be not par for the course) he's at 4.7.

so that .4 more assists a game..woohoo!

Ive decided to compare the last 7 games that Telfair played with the 7(8) games that Blake has played, because it's w/out Darius and a fair comparison.

Telfairs last 7 games he played (which inclued the pounding by the suns where he had 0 assists) where he was the starter without Darius helping (and didn't have a decent SG starter) he averaged 4.7 assists.

Oddly enough, the game before Miles left Zach had 5 assists. 



> Blake is shooting at a 43.5% clip, to Telfair's 38.9%.


the shooting % is one area thats clearly in Blakes favor. However, Telfair (in the last 7 games he played) was shooting 39% from 3, and Blake is shooting 33% from 3. 



> Blake is right at 1 turnover a game, to Telfair's average of 1.9.


turnovers is basically a push between them.



> Blake's defense has plainly been better than Telfair's.


neither one is really that great at defense.



> Blake has played 3 of his last 7 starts without Przybilla. he's played all of those games without our second or best player, Miles. yet he's been the PG on a team that is winning at a much higher percent than it was under Telfair.


you'll also notice that usually A: a team who just loses it's best or 2nd best player tends to struggle at the start and can get better as time goes by B: Telfair wasn't playing with a decent starting SG C: Zach has finally started to accepted the system.

that all plays a huge factor in things. Not to mention Ruben's improved play too.

Zach's play has gone from 14.6 and 6.9 (the first 7 games Darius was out) to 22 and 9.25 (or 19.4 and 9 if you take out the Detroit game) the last 8 games.

I don't know how much you can attribute that to the PG's play (at least as much as some want to think) because it's more about effort. If he's missing from the start, he'd basically stop playing. In the first 7 games he has rebounding games of 3, 2, 4 and 2. That shows no effort. but I guess that has to be the PG's fault, eh?




> so how do you see them to be playing at the same level? I just don't see it.


look at the Grizzlies game. Blake basically played the same game that he always played (see: telfair) and Zach and Juan had bad games. Just imagine that for basically 7 straight games, and we'll see how good Blake looks to SAS fans.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

The thought plickens......

From: The Big O



> The first major decision in Nate McMillan's coaching tenure in Portland is on the horizon, as team doctors have cleared Sebastian Telfair for game action after he sat out the past eight games with a thumb injury.
> 
> The question at hand: Who starts at point guard -- Telfair or Steve Blake?..
> 
> ...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap, I think this latest article, pretty much lays out what I've been saying to you......that:

a) The team is playing better right now with Blake starting

b) Telfair just may have to work and wait to get his starting position back

That's really about it in a nutshell.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> thats mostly because all he can counter with is his same old tired crap that even he knows is old and tired crap.....


How's that, Hap? You seem to trot out a bevy of "I think" and I feel", etc., while I counter with what the record reveals, supplemented by plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of "he said" and "they said" from legitimate, in-the-know sources.

How in the heck is that old and tired??


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> How's that, Hap? You seem to trot out a bevy of "I think" and I feel", etc., while I counter with what the record reveals, supplemented by plenty (and I mean PLENTY) of "he said" and "they said" from legitimate, in-the-know sources.
> 
> How in the heck is that old and tired??


are you tlong tim?

because I'm fairly certain you're not.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Hap, I think this latest article, pretty much lays out what I've been saying to you......that:
> 
> a) The team is playing better right now with Blake starting
> 
> ...


the team is also playing better with Viktor starting, should we just then give darius spot minutes? 

because you're again attributing things to Blakes credit that aren't as much to his credit are you're implying. He is not playing so great that he has won the starting spot. 

Thats all I'm saying, I don't know why you're thinking I'm saying different.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> the team is also playing better with Viktor starting, should we just then give darius spot minutes?


Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather see Victor and Ruben play.

barfo


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather see Victor and Ruben play.
> 
> barfo


personally I'd rather have Viktor get the most minutes, but I realize that Darius is a better player. But being better for the team isn't what I think Darius is best at. I know that the arguement could be made that Telfair isn't, but that one would be a lot harder to make.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> are you tlong tim?
> 
> because I'm fairly certain you're not.


Hmmm.....not getting that one.

I was simply responding to your "old and tired" remark, which I took to be directly aimed my way.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Hmmm.....not getting that one.
> 
> I was simply responding to your "old and tired" remark, which I took to be directly aimed my way.


you might want to read the post again then.



> Originally Posted by theWanker
> 
> when you say "some of us," who do you mean? me? EdO? ABM? the only person I've seen on this board who seems to have a really anti-Telfair agenda has been tlong, and he hasn't really been that active in the debate, from what I've seen.





> thats mostly because all he can counter with is his same old tired crap that even he knows is old and tired crap.


thats me responding to Wanker, saying that the only person he's seen on this board who seems to really have an anti-telfair agenda, is Tlong, and he hasn't really been that active in this debate. And I gave my theory on why he hasn't been.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> the team is also playing better with Viktor starting, should we just then give darius spot minutes?


IMO, the reason Viktor is starting is because Nate loves having Ruben come off the bench. That being said, I'm not seeing (nor will I expect) much in the newspapers as to there being a dilemma with Viktor upon Miless return.

Prove me wrong, but, other than starting, I don't see Viktor having any more impact on the games than Ruben currently does.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> you might want to read the post again then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh. 

Sorry 'bout that.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

ABM said:


> IMO, the reason Viktor is starting is because Nate loves having Ruben come off the bench. That being said, I'm not seeing (nor will I expect) much in the newspapers as to there being a dilemma with Viktor upon Miless return.
> 
> Prove me wrong, but, other than starting, I don't see Viktor having any more impact on the games than Ruben currently does.


I'm not quite seeing your argument here ABM. It looks like you are saying

Viktor = Ruben

therefore

Miles > Viktor

barfo


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

barfo said:


> I'm not quite seeing your argument here ABM. It looks like you are saying
> 
> Viktor = Ruben
> 
> ...


I'm simply saying that, just because Viktor is starting, doesn't mean we necessarily have to attribute overall team success to that fact. In fact, I see him as a relatively small cog in the overall equation.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> I'm simply saying that, just because Viktor is starting, doesn't mean we necessarily have to attribute overall team success to that fact. In fact, I see him as a relatively small cog in the overall equation.


but you attribute overall team success to the fact that Blake is starting?

wah huh?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> but you attribute overall team success to the fact that Blake is starting?
> 
> wah huh?


Yes, hence all the team/management discussions, and potential coaching dilemma, as related in the newspapers.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Yes, hence all the team/management discussions, and potential coaching dilemma, as related in the newspapers.


so there isn't a dilemma when Miles comes back? I mean, afterall, the team IS playing better without him in the lineup, I guess he should be a backup.

A lot of the "coaching diemma" is media and fan generated and all the "management discussions" too. 

It's just funny that you are so gung ho in favor of blake (despite fhe fact that you're attributing things to one starter and not to another) but think that Viktor (who's smart play and hustle) is just a "small cog" in the system. You're comparing how players are playing, in different systems, but then not giving credit to one, but to another. 

infact, you're basically giving credit to 1 at the expense of 3 other players (Juan, Ruben and Zach) and act like it's all on 1 player, despite the fact he's putting up stats that are comparable to Telfairs, and not shooting much less per game and the other 3 players have all increased their #'s and effort AND (especially in the case of Zach) showing great growth when it comes to understanding the system.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> so there isn't a dilemma when Miles comes back? I mean, afterall, the team IS playing better without him in the lineup, I guess he should be a backup.
> 
> A lot of the "coaching diemma" is media and fan generated and all the "management discussions" too.
> 
> ...


I've said it a dozen times already, I'll say it again: *Currently*, I believe Blake is better equipped to lead this team than Telfair is. If you don't believe he is, then fine, we'll just agree to disagree - if that's OK with you.

What happens in the future, and discussions about other players is not what I've been talking about here.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

I think the only thing this Jaynes guy is right about is Morrison. Calling Miles a me first player is ridiculous. Miles was called upon to become more of a scorer and he did his job. He was the leading scorer on the team when he went out and he was shooting a pretty good percentage in the process. His bad attitude was a problem last year and before the preseason. Also I have seen quite a few scouting sites that rank Shelden Williams in the top ten. So far he is the guy I would like for the Blazers to get. He is the best post defender in the draft.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ABM said:


> I've said it a dozen times already, I'll say it again: *Currently*, I believe Blake is better equipped to lead this team than Telfair is. If you don't believe he is, then fine, we'll just agree to disagree - if that's OK with you.
> 
> What happens in the future, and discussions about other players is not what I've been talking about here.


the weird thing is that Hap seems to agree with you, in that he seemed to say in another thread that Blake should start, even though throughout this one he says it doesn't matter and that they play equally well. although he said in a thread prior to that one that Blake in no way should start over Telfair, although it later turned out that tlong and I misunderstood him.

maybe there's so much nuance in his position that my puny brain can't quite catch what he really means. near as I can tell, it's something like "Blake should start in front of Telfair in the near term, even though they both have played equally well and Telfair is the long-term future of our team and Blake is nothing more than a role player who has benefited from freak luck." 

that position doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. (if he really is right, then why should Blake start just because he's been freakishly lucky?) anyway, I think that's what he means.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> the weird thing is that Hap seems to agree with you, in that he seemed to say in another thread that Blake should start, even though throughout this one he says it doesn't matter and that they play equally well. although he said in a thread prior to that one that Blake in no way should start over Telfair, although it later turned out that tlong and I misunderstood him.
> 
> maybe there's so much nuance in his position that my puny brain can't quite catch what he really means. near as I can tell, it's something like "Blake should start in front of Telfair in the near term, even though they both have played equally well and Telfair is the long-term future of our team and Blake is nothing more than a role player who has benefited from freak luck."
> 
> that position doesn't make a damned bit of sense to me. (if he really is right, then why should Blake start just because he's been freakishly lucky?) anyway, I think that's what he means.


never said it was his freakish luck, but that people are attributing far more to him than he's worth. He's not the sole reason for the team improving, but certain posters are acting like he is. 

Blake should start until Telfair is back into game shape, as missing 8+ games will make one rusty. The "demotion" to the bench shouldn't be (and probably won't be) very long.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Speaking of the draft OJ Mayo just turned 18. Can he be drafted in 2006 at the age of 18 and held out until he is 19? Or do you have to wait until he is 19 before you draft him.


----------



## RPCity (Aug 29, 2005)

He's not eligible to have his name entered into the draft until he's 19.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Hap said:


> never said it was his freakish luck, but that *people are attributing far more to him than he's worth. He's not the sole reason for the team improving*, but certain posters are acting like he is.
> 
> Blake should start until Telfair is back into game shape, as missing 8+ games will make one rusty. The "demotion" to the bench shouldn't be (and probably won't be) very long.


I agree with Hap in that Blake is"not the sole reason for the team improving"
If Nate is in control of this team as most of us think he is, Nate probably began, inorder to get more scoring and less turnovers, to have the team work on such things as: 

1. Swinging the ball from side to side and develope better entrance passing to Zack and Ruben,when he is repacing Zack, 

2. Searching for a better scorer at the two hence Dixon, and

3. Since Miles is out, replacing him with someone who can and will swing the ball also, hence Krahapa, 

4. Also demanding that Rubn play within the offense and post down low so the system is not much different when Zack is out, and 

5. Since Telfair was injured, playing Blake at the one and with Blake's size, experience and familiarity with Dixon and poise

6. And last but certainly not least, Zack was told to kick out the ball at the first sign of a doubleteam and he has. 

7. And last of the last Ruben was told if he was to come back to the team he must a) shoot his FT better b) stay under control c) stay down on the block on offense. Ruben was treated much like Gary Payton soon after Nate took ouver in Seattle and this control is a major fact of the teams sucess I believe.

Where does Telfair fit in allof this, when/if he comes back to start it will be because he melds with these things. He is a smart kid and wants to be "great" I think and he will do what he has to to get there. ABM is probably right and Telfair will come back to start when he is back up to speed phsyicaly and game wise. I talked alot but may not have helpped in setteling anything however.


gatorpops


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> He's not the sole reason for the team improving, but certain posters are acting like he is.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I ever said that. What I am saying, though, is that the team certainly appears to be playing better while he's in the starting lineup.



> Blake should start until Telfair is back into game shape, as missing 8+ games will make one rusty. The "demotion" to the bench shouldn't be (and probably won't be) very long.


I think Telfair should return to the starting lineup when *Nate* decides he should return to the starting lineup.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I ever said that. What I am saying, though, is that the team certainly appears to be playing better while he's in the starting lineup.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Telfair should return to the starting lineup when *Nate* decides he should return to the starting lineup.


I think the last two nights kind of show that the team actually was playing better as a team, and not because of Blake himself. It's kind of hard to look good when you have 2 players in double figures, and you don't play decent defense.

So what have we learned boys and girl? 

Blake looked a lot better than he was, because the rest of the team was playing better. Blake actually looked a lot like Telfair when the rest of the team was playing like it was when Telfair was playing.

moral of the story? 

The creation of the "we have to keep starting Blake" Bandwagon was a little premature.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

lol. in 8 starts the guy has now twice pulled off 11 or more assists (something Telfair hasn't come close to doing even once in 21 games) and the moral is that we shouldn't start Blake? 

it's getting ridiculous. Blake could part the Red Sea and you'd just point out that Moses did it first. 

it's pointless even talking about it anymore. anytime anybody says anything in defense of Blake starting, you imply nonsense about how "some people think he's the only reason we're doing better," which is absolutely stupid. 

I'm pretty much through with this. there's no point in arguing this anymore for me.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> lol. in 8 starts the guy has now twice pulled off 11 or more assists (something Telfair hasn't come close to doing even once in 21 games) and the moral is that we shouldn't start Blake?


The moral is we shouldn't be annointing him as the permanent starter or that he's playing at such a great rate that he is 100% the starter.

Btw, his 2 "11 or more assist" nights (out of 9 starts) also also came in losses. People *****ed a lot when Telfair had 27 points and 7 assists...in a loss. (Btw, 27 and 7 is better than 5 and 11).

You're also comparing things that aren't the same. Put telfair in a lineup with Juan Dixon and Zach Randolph passing a whole lot more, and Ruben playing well within the system.



> it's getting ridiculous. Blake could part the Red Sea and you'd just point out that Moses did it first.


yah...because Blake is doing something thats like parting the sea that's so unusual and great...



> it's pointless even talking about it anymore. anytime anybody says anything in defense of Blake starting, you imply nonsense about how "some people think he's the only reason we're doing better," which is absolutely stupid.
> 
> I'm pretty much through with this. there's no point in arguing this anymore for me.


It's kind of pointless to argue about it because people (mostly abm and apparently yourself) are refusing to see that he's a small portion of whats happening, and not an inaugural point to the reason why. 

Not admitting that Blake is benifitting from the improvement of Zach, the solid play from Ruben, and having a starting SG who isn't a rookie or whatever, is kind of important to the arguement. 

Considering that it was argued that he was shooting better (tho his % keeps dropping. he's now down to 40% from the floor, and 30% from 3's. ) and the teams assists are going up (although ignoring that they're playing the system better) and that his turnovers are less (although not a whole lot and the team as a whole is averaging more)..well, it's kind of funny that people still aren't going to admit that he's not really out-right "earning" his starting spot. 

And if you take into account that the 3 wins that they had were against a bad Kings team, a streaky 76ers team and a bad wovles team, and Zach's production is up 6 points a game..

well you're right, it is getting tired arguing about it, mostly because one side of the arguement seems to be a lot of jumping on a bandwagon style thinking.

He's had good assist #'s in 2 of the 9 games where Blake has started (above the magical # that proves he's doing better than Telfair) have been in losses, including one that was an absolute horrible loss and the other where the team played no different than it did with Telfair (tonites). 

I think you and abm are just trying to grasp a little too hard at proving Blake is playing so great and the team is, when it's not really to his credit to the degree you want to make it out to be. Not enough is being made out of Juan, Ruben and Zach palying better (which ironically, the trio didn't play (collectively) that good in the last two games and they lost them). Despite Blake not really changing his game stats much. 

hm..thats odd. The PG isn't as responsible for the wins or losses as some would like to think.


----------



## Backboard Cam (Apr 29, 2003)

theWanker said:


> Blake could part the Red Sea and you'd just point out that Moses did it first.


Moses was overrated, the Red Sea was parting naturally on its own at the exact instant Moses got there. Give the water some credit. 

Really strange thread. Interesting read.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

theWanker said:


> lol. in 8 starts the guy has now twice pulled off 11 or more assists (something Telfair hasn't come close to doing even once in 21 games) and the moral is that we shouldn't start Blake?
> 
> it's getting ridiculous. Blake could part the Red Sea and you'd just point out that Moses did it first.
> 
> ...


 :yes: I couldn't agree more. 

Reading Hap's snippy and rude comments just make me plain grumpy. He calls people's posts "crap", talks down to everyone and overgeneralizes (I love the "what did we learn boys and girls?" um "we" didn't learn anything, you believe what you want but don't imply everyone else is on board with you please) 

Wanker you may want to try what I do now, when you see his avatar, scroll down to the next post. Makes me a much happier person, see: before scrolling:  after scrolling: :banana:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

This pretty much sizes up waht I've been attemtping to convey on the situation..

From today's BlazerBlog.



> For what it's worth, this gambling site says the Blazers have been a bettor's dream with Telfair out of the lineup:
> 
> With third-year man Steve Blake filling in at the point, Portland is 7-2 ATS (4-5 straight up) and is putting up eight more points (93.1 versus 85.5 points) and five more assists per game. For his part, Blake is averaging 10.6 points and 5.8 assists as a starter.
> 
> ...


The only caviat I would add is: if Telfair _does_ come in and prove to be as/more successful at running the team than Blake has recently, then, yeah, the experiment os over. Go back to _future_.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

bballchik said:


> :yes: I couldn't agree more.
> 
> Reading Hap's snippy and rude comments just make me plain grumpy. He calls people's posts "crap", talks down to everyone and overgeneralizes (I love the "what did we learn boys and girls?" um "we" didn't learn anything, you believe what you want but don't imply everyone else is on board with you please)
> 
> Wanker you may want to try what I do now, when you see his avatar, scroll down to the next post. Makes me a much happier person, see: before scrolling:  after scrolling: :banana:


I have to admit I'm getting to that point. if I want random hostility I might as well just go change the diaper of my two month old.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

ABM said:


> This pretty much sizes up waht I've been attemtping to convey on the situation..
> The only caviat I would add is: if Telfair _does_ come in and prove to be as/more successful at running the team than Blake has recently, then, yeah, the experiment os over. Go back to _future_.


I got no problem with that. I think the odds are still in favor of Telfair being our starting PG in five years, but it's nowhere near the lock I thought it was at the beginning of the season.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

> Originally Posted by bballchik
> 
> I couldn't agree more.
> 
> ...





> I have to admit I'm getting to that point. if I want random hostility I might as well just go change the diaper of my two month old.


did either one of you even bother to actually read what i was saying instead of assinging "snippy" labels to what I said?

As for the "snippy and rude" comments, if you had actually been here for a while you'd see that a lot of what Tlong did say in the past in regards to Telfair (what Wanker was reffering to) _was_ crap, and people (including himself I'd bet) grew tired of it. So for you to make the comment based on that, says a lot. 

Do not confuse me calling 1 persons crap, crap, with me calling everyone elses posts crap. Thats a cheap and lazy way to accuse someone of being something, or doing something, that they're not. Trying to associate 1 thing that was said to a poster, and acting like it accounts for all the interactions Ive had with this thread, is just lazy.

Unless you're trying to make a big stink out of this



> I just can't wait for the blake bandwagon to leave town, and people realize what he is. A good role player, who's playing his role excellently. Thats what you want in a role player. I could understand all this crap if it was liek last year with joel and theo, when joel was obviously out-playing theo and theo was injured and basically playing at 10% of theo. Telfair wasn't, and Blake isn't obviously outplaying him.


well, in that context you'd see that Im talking the debate as whole (including my own involvement). 

This is just like how some people can't understand that calling someones idea stupid isn't the same as calling that person stupid.

If either of you actually read through the posts (or even bother reading this one) you'll see that I was civil and didn't get 'snippy'. The only time you could even argue I was "rude" or "hostile", was after my original stance (that we need not be annointing someone the perm starter because we're associating things to him that he doesn't warrant) was kind of justifed.

It is not my fault that some people don't like the style of point counter point arguing. It's also not my fault (or anyone who takes this arguing style) if they take it as being "snippy or rude". 

I'd hope that both of you (ted moreso) would go back and re-read what i actually said and not make comments based not what you read into what I said but what I _actually_ said. Because you'll see what I was harping on (giving more credit to juan ruben and zach) and what I felt was being done, wasn't said in a "rude" or "snippy" way, or randomly "hostile".


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Heh, when Hap calls you by your _real_ name?...... is when he effectively has become "snippy and rude" personified. 

We all love ya anyway, Hap. :yes:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> Heh, when Hap calls you by your _real_ name?...... is when he effectively has become "snippy and rude" personified.
> 
> We all love ya anyway, Hap. :yes:


if thats where we've lowered the bar to whats "snippy and rude"..well, we've gotten pretty low on the "thick skin" meter.

hm..does that mean I'm snippy and rude with Ed all the time, since I call Ed by his real name?


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> if thats where we've lowered the bar to whats "snippy and rude"..well, we've gotten pretty low on the "thick skin" meter.
> 
> hm..does that mean I'm snippy and rude with Ed all the time, since I call Ed by his real name?


As I often tell my wife...."you win" :greatjob:


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

check your PM, Hap.


----------



## bballchik (Oct 22, 2005)

Hap said:


> did either one of you even bother to actually read what i was saying instead of assinging "snippy" labels to what I said?".


Yes, actually I did, until yesterday. And now obviously because at this point I feel bad for you that you really don't get what people are saying and I don't want you to be all hostile, I'm tryin to help you out here. I was actually minorly attacked in the past for being rude and sarcastic as well and I've since realized that's no way to convey an opinion I'm trying to help you out here dude, seriously, I'd say step one for you would be to take a chill pill. 



Hap said:


> As for the "snippy and rude" comments, if you had actually been here for a while you'd see that a lot of what Tlong did say in the past in regards to Telfair (what Wanker was reffering to) _was_ crap, and people (including himself I'd bet) grew tired of it. So for you to make the comment based on that, says a lot.
> 
> Do not confuse me calling 1 persons crap, crap, with me calling everyone elses posts crap. Thats a cheap and lazy way to accuse someone of being something, or doing something, that they're not. Trying to associate 1 thing that was said to a poster, and acting like it accounts for all the interactions Ive had with this thread, is just lazy.
> 
> Unless you're trying to make a big stink out of this.



I have one word for you TONE. Your tone is snippy and rude in almost all your posts, not just the "crap" post. I pointed out the "crap" statement, yes, but that isn't all I said, you also talk down to people and are extremely argumentative. Instead of voicing your opinion in a non biased way and trying to explain yourself to others (a la abm and other good posters) you attack what they say and also as abm pointed out, he uses facts while you use "feelings" making your hostile points all the less valid. I don't know how else to explain it besides read ABM's posts THOUROUGHLY I mean really read them and picture the intended tone of voice of the poster; then read your own posts and see if you can pick up on your own sarcasm and hostility. I'm sure you'll be quick to point out to me that you did and you're not hostile and then you'll go into a massive attack on me, and that's fine,go with your opinion, it's a free country, and if you want to be a hostile poster then I hope it doesn't bother you that people don't even want to read what you have to say but in this free country that is our right as well. 



Hap said:


> well, in that context you'd see that Im talking the debate as whole (including my own involvement).
> 
> This is just like how some people can't understand that calling someones idea stupid isn't the same as calling that person stupid.
> 
> ...


Again, to me, and obviously to Wanker, and who knows how many others, you are hostile and snippy. And we're not saying we don't like your posts because we feel differently than you about Blake vs. Telfair, we don't like the way you talk to people and belittle what they say. You attack instead of challenge, there's a big difference. Again if you want to continue to post in that tone you have the right but I have the right to scroll past it and suggest it to others. One last note, ever heard the expression kill them with kindness? There's a reason that works..........
But hey what do I know?


----------

