# P-GS Game thread



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

oh yeah!


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Magloire starting at center. Jack, Roy, Travis and Randolph round out the starting lineup.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Martell giving a _speech_. I'm getting all teared up.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Magloire ain't having too good of a start.

Oh, and what's that now, 5 team turnovers already?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

22- 5

ouch 

mag and zbo should never should be in the same line up.

24 -7


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

This is brutal. Not only are they playing poorly, but they're getting no calls. 

I smell (nay, see) a blowout.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

/me waits for the yearly reprint on espn.com of "Implosion Ahead" with the pic of Sheed and Dunleavy on the front page :biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

martell for 3 finally


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

We suck.

Greg Oden, here we come.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ouch...where is the defense...34 pts to GS in the 1st qrt. Baron is just having his way with us it sounds like.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

:laugh: Was that actually the score? 24-7? Ouch.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

35-20 gs end of 1st


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

If there is one thing that I've discovered during these 2 games is that Zach starts off the game very well rebounding. He had atleast 4 rebounds in the first quarter in the first game, and according to NBA.com right now he has 3.

Roy's played the whole first quarter, and Jack has 2 fouls already.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

sa1177 said:


> Ouch...where is the defense...34 pts to GS in the 1st qrt. Baron is just having his way with us it sounds like.


put roy on him lol


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

38 -24 gs


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

Jack is off to a flying STOP and Baron Davis,as usual, is having his way with Portland. Even Dunlevy is playing pretty good.

Still, with so many new faces, it's gonna take a while.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

sergio did very good


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

There's 7 words I hope we don't hear very often this season:

Two free throws coming for Jamaal Magloire


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Yeah, Sergio is definitely playing very well. He has 2 steals already, I'm pleasantly suprised and there will be no need for Dickau when he contract is up. 

It's pretty much impossible to stop Baron Davis against us, he always seems to dominate us.

Roy leading the way with 6 points.


----------



## southnc (Dec 15, 2005)

And Roy is showing good potential for a rookie.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

it's a bad sign if zendon outplays magloire


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> There's 7 words I hope we don't hear very often this season:
> 
> Two free throws coming for Jamaal Magloire


Well he made both of them..


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

7 point game......9 pt game


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Well he made both of them..



of course meaning he's gonna miss the next two


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> of course meaning he's gonna miss the next two


:laugh: Hopefully he won't have too.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

44 - 37 gs


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Well he made both of them..


http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/stati...none&qual=true&season=2006&seasontype=2&pos=c


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Martell and Roy are really showing they can be something. Each have 10 points and from what it looks like, they are bringing us back. I'm very happy and hopefully Nate takes this into consideration when he is deciding the starting lineup.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> :laugh: Hopefully he won't have too.


he already did :banana:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Martell and Roy are really showing they can be something. Each have 10 points and from what it looks like, they are bringing us back. I'm very happy and hopefully Nate takes this into consideration when he is deciding the starting lineup.



so far only 3 assists in the half. gonna be hard to win that way no matter who starts.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

47 - 42 gs


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

50 -44 gs


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Martell with 10, Roy with 10, Zach with 9. 

We have 10 TO's, the suprising thing? 3 from Jamaal, 2 from Zach.

Magloire's got 3 blocks.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I was about to be super pissed after the 1st quarter... but it's turned around and Roy and Webster are leading us back... I couldn't be happier now!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Martell hits another shot for 12 points, and Magloire turns it over again. 50-44 GS.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

50 - 46 gs


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Wowzers..4 TOs for Magloire already...ack...


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

getting more calls now. helps to gripe.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Martell with 2 more FT's, Baron makes a pair, then Zach comes back w/ a layup. 

54-48 GS.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

2 pt game!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

2 pt? Is NBA streaming that far behind?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

outscore gs 34 to 22 iirc


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Apparently it is..just caught up..


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

down 4 57-53 at the half. martell with 17


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Wow, Martell is lighting it up. In just under 6 and a half minutes he has 17 points. Zach's got 13.

57-53 GS.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

1 assist each from Jack, Roy, Webster...while Magloire has 2...ouch, we need to pick that up a tad.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

You gotta like Zach's line:

13 points, 7 rebounds on 5-9 shooting; 3-3 from the line

roy:
10 points, 2 rebounds, 1 assist on 4-7 shooting.

Webster:
17 points, 2 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, 1 turnover on 5-9 shooting (3-5 3pt)

Could he get 30?


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Blazer Freak said:


> Wow, Martell is lighting it up. In just under 6 and a half minutes he has 17 points.



martell was in most of the half.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> martell was in most of the half.


:laugh: Well I was going off of NBA.com. My mistake.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> You gotta like Zach's line:
> 
> 13 points, 7 rebounds on 5-9 shooting; 3-3 from the line
> 
> ...


Look's like a good game by our big 3. Zach sure is having a good half. Nice to see everyone staying off his back.

For those at the game, is he down inside?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Freak said:


> Look's like a good game by our big 3. Zach sure is having a good half. Nice to see everyone staying off his back.
> 
> For those at the game, is he down inside?


Dunno..but points in the paint tied at 24..that's a good sign.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Dunno..but points in the paint tied at 24..that's a good sign.


Definitely. 53 points in a half? Sounds good to me. :laugh:


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Per ESPN Gamecast, Zach Randolph only had one 18-foot jumper in the first half. Everything else was in the paint.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Samuel said:


> Per ESPN Gamecast, Zach Randolph only had one 18-foot jumper in the first half. Everything else was in the paint.


That's very good news. Roy hits a J, JJ hits a T FT, and we have 2 more coming up. 

61-59 GS.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Magloire turns it over, then fouls....then Roy gets an offensive foul. He's got 4...

63-59.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

GS is pulling away like it did the start of the 1st quarter


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Roy out, Webster in..down 65-59 now.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

I think whoever starts to make their FT's will win this game. Right now, both teams are shooting 69% from the line...


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

See, I was the only voice of reason on this board as everyone was getting all excited over "former all-star Jamal Maglorie." In the middle of the season, we'll be missing steady Steve Blake.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Yega1979 said:


> See, I was the only voice of reason on this board as everyone was getting all excited over "former all-star Jamal Maglorie." In the middle of the season, we'll be missing steady Steve Blake.


:laugh: Steve Blake won't get any better than he is now, and why start a steady PG like Blake when you have Jack waiting on the bench ready to come out and develop into our starting PG?

Sure Blake was a good PG, but he was holding back the development of our PG's. Dickau is the perfect fit. If he's feeling it, leave him in, but he won't be demanding PT.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Mike Dunleavy is starting to catch fire. He has 20 now and Webster hits 2 FT's.

70-65 GS.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Biendrins turns it over, Zach makes a shot and gets fouled. Zbo makes the FT then Roberson comes down and hits a 3...

73-68.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

73 - 68 gs


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Przybilla makes a jumper in the lane and gets fouled as well. 73-68. We just need a stop or two and we can take the lead..Joel misses the FT, Blazers get the rebound. JJ gets an offensive foul and a TECH.

Tech FT is missed but GS gets the ball.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

76 -68 gs


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Portland didn't go to Webster or Randolph at all there, the two hot hands. 

Check out the current lineup: 3 point guards!

Sergio
Dickau
Jack
Outlaw
Przybilla

Jack at the 3? Wow.


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I know it's only 3 quarters of one pre-season game, but Jack, Roy, and Martell are really looking like the starting 1/2/3 of the Blazers future, and at least Martell and Roy have star written in their future, or so it seems


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

83-76


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

dixon in the pound apparently


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> dixon in the pound apparently


Who?

:biggrin:


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

telfairblake who?

jack with 16 in the quarter


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Foul trouble is killing Portland right now. Randolph, Webster, Roy, Jack, Przybilla, and Magloire (basically the important players) are all saddled with at least 4.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Foul trouble is killing Portland right now. Randolph, Webster, Roy, Jack, Przybilla, and Magloire (basically the important players) are all saddled with at least 4.



that and GS having 6 different players hit 3's.


edit: and also having your starting center commit 6 turnovers & 5 fouls while scoring 2 pts in 17 minutes.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

The key difference in the game at this point IMO is Golden State's 21-9 advantage in assists and 11 vs 17 TO advantage.

Portland has some people who are playing well but I just think that perhaps with more/better passing, we could have more assists and, likely, more easy baskets.

Gramps...


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

jack fouls out


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

This is a Nellie team so I expected a relatively high scoring game but thought, "its still pre-season, it won't be THAT high". I was wrong.

Lighting up the board.

Gramps...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Non-factors in the second half:
Roy
Webster


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Dickau: 1-9 from the field. Yikes.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Non-factors in the second half:
> Roy
> Webster


with roy that's foul trouble


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> with roy that's foul trouble


Webster hurt his back and just came back to the game a few minutes ago.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Encouraging sign number X: Webster is 8-10 from the line tonight. Last season he was hesitant to even enter the paint.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

wow we got a shot here


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Yes we do. Webster has 24 points now and is 9-11 from the line.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

This would be a great confidence boost for these guys. Give it to Webster for the W.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

OT for us. CHEA!

Zach with 27/10.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

What a great game! I was just thinking that would have been a great time for Brandon to start his legend, making the winning basket! Oh welll, OT.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I have 100 level tickets and didn't go! I tweaked my back a little and let my wife talk me out of going!


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

mgb said:


> I have 100 level tickets and didn't go! I tweaked my back a little and let my wife talk me out of going!


That's when it's time to break out your trusty walker, and get 'er dun.


----------



## ST (Jul 25, 2002)

there goes nellie's plan of limiting threes...Davis is still a chucker.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Dickau needs to stop shooting. At 1-10, he's still firing away.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Christ. If we are to win, then we need to stop Dunleavy.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Or foul him out. He has 5 fouls after Roy misses a shot and gets his own rebound.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Man, I love it when our young guns play well. Especially when GS is playing 4 of their 5 starters regular season minutes. Keep Juan on the dam bench!!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Man, I love it when our young guns play well. Especially when GS is playing 4 of their 5 starters regular season minutes. Keep Juan on the dam bench!!


Roy just fouled out and Sergio missed a jumper..


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Who just fouled out?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

i really wish LA was available this preseason. Im dying to see him play.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

mgb said:


> Who just fouled out?


Brandon.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Roy just fouled out and Sergio missed a jumper..


Damn, would have to be Roy!


----------



## ST (Jul 25, 2002)

AAARGH, stop chucking boom-dizzle.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

ST said:


> AAARGH, stop chucking boom-dizzle.


Guess who comes in for Brandon? Oh yay! Dixon!


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Take it inside!


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Biendrins with the layup.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Wow - I'd totally forgotten this game was happening. Glad I checked in here. I just read this whole thread, and probably get a better sense of the flow of the game from y'all, than I would have from just reading the Recap, or the In-Game Stats. 

Last I saw was a tie score 118-118 - amazing for a team that was down almost 20 in the first quarter.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

its over


----------



## ST (Jul 25, 2002)

dunleavy playing at the 4 would mean awesome nightly fantasy stats for western forwards.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Public Defender said:


> Wow - I'd totally forgotten this game was happening. Glad I checked in here. I just read this whole thread, and probably get a better sense of the flow of the game from y'all, than I would have from just reading the Recap, or the In-Game Stats.
> 
> Last I saw was a tie score 118-118 - amazing for a team that was down almost 20 in the first quarter.


Well Outlaw came down shot a jumper and Zach got the rebound and was fouled. We're down 120-118 with 36 seconds left. Come on ZBo.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Dang, that's it.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Alrighty...well Sergio just turned it over and Dickau had to foul....Baron his the first...and makes the 2nd. Outlaw comes down and hits a shot...Down 2 with 15 seconds..


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Too much losing both Webster and Roy.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Seems like it's over. Barnes just dunked it wiht 12 seconds left. We're down 4, 124-120.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

You had to go for the three that way if you make it and they make both free throws a three can tie.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah i ddint think we would win in OT we had to hit the game winner in the 4th to pull it off


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Blazer Freak said:


> Seems like it's over. Barnes just dunked it wiht 12 seconds left. We're down 4, 124-120.


Ya, but good game. We didn't fold in the fourth like the last game. We fought it down to the wire and took it into OT even after starting so bad.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

That was a pretty decent test, and I'd say the Blazers did OK. Had they not been so totally outclassed in the first quarter, maybe the final score would have been different. I think there might be the ingredients for a winning team here... eventually.

Some good performances - Z-Bo with 27 and 12 in 40 minutes, Brandon Roy's 19 and 9, and 25 points out of Martell Webster. Had Magloire not laid a total egg with his two points, six fouls and five turnovers, maybe things would have been interesting.


----------



## sabas4mvp (Sep 23, 2002)

both teams played hard


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Can you say "moral victory"?

Sounds like our young guys battled hard against a veteran GS team. I'm OK with this.

-Pop


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

We call a TO, guess who comes out to shoot? Ol' Juany boy! Misses and Sergio gets the rebound with 6 seconds..Zach misses a shot and that's game.

Blazers lose, 124-120.

Still a great game from our starting players. 

Zach Randolph- 27 points, 12 rebounds, 3 assists 10-17 shooting and 7-8 from the line.

Martell Webster- 25 points, 3 rebounds, 1 assists, 6-11 shooting and 10-12 from the line.

Brandon Roy- 19 points, 9 rebounds, 3 assists, 7-13 shooting and 5-5 from the line.

Good game by those 3. We still have trouble with our younger guys fouling out...


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I've noticed in these first two games, fouling seems to be an issue for the blazers. Maybe it's just from tighter calls from the refs this year, maybe they're just trying to put more pressure on through pure hustle, I dunno. Just seems like they're commiting an aweful lot of fouls, and that seems to be playing a large part in their downfall (that and the turnovers).


----------



## FeloniusThunk (Jan 1, 2003)

Sounds like a preview of the season: exciting, close, bright-looking future, but no win. I can hope the young guns go like this all the time, though, and be happy with that.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I'll still take it. If you tell me Webster scored 25, Roy had 19, Jack had 16, Randolph had 27, and Outlaw had 12 (?!), I'd have been happy with any result. 

Nice effort out there.

Magloire is really making me yearn for the LaLa brothers to come back.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

Baron Davis and *gulp* Mike Dunleavy were just too much for us to handle. And as always execution down the stretch was a problem. But that's to be expected when Jack, Roy and Webster have fouled out of the game.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Mike Dunleavy is just a late bloomer. That guy was 6'6 at Duke now he is 6'10 playing PF next year he is going to put on muscle. Oh well.. I'm just glad Webster had a big game against tough comp. Webster is the main players that needs to become something if the Blazers win a title with this rebuilding period.

I will just be happy when the Blazers
Start Webster!!
Remove Dikau from the rotation!! 

Did Dixon play at all?


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

2k said:


> Did Dixon play at all?


Just barely after everyone fouled out. I bet Nate was considering suiting up himself instead of putting Dixon in but I'm guessing that wouldn't go over too well with the refs...


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> See, I was the only voice of reason on this board as everyone was getting all excited over "former all-star Jamal Maglorie." In the middle of the season, we'll be missing steady Steve Blake.


In case you haven't been paying attention to current events, the Blazers still are not short on point guards. Right now the Blazers have 3 PG who are as good as Blake if not better, and 2 who have a huge amount more upside. 

I still go back to last game and point out that the problem isn't MagLoire, it is who Nate has him teamed up with in the half court. When he and Zbo are in the game at the same time, they cause space problems on offense. This is also the exact reason I expect Aldridge to get playing time as soon as he is back, he can hit the outside jumper that Magloire can not, which will free up the team spacing better.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

mgb said:


> Too much losing both Webster and Roy.


Yep, and better get used to it, young players don't get any slack from the refs in this league. With big minutes, I fully expect a lot of DQ's this season as they learn the ropes and how the different refs call the game.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Take out Dan Dickau, and we shot 55% as a team.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> Just barely after everyone fouled out. I bet Nate was considering suiting up himself instead of putting Dixon in but I'm guessing that wouldn't go over too well with the refs...


Whats up with not playing Dixon? I would rather see him off the bench then Dickau. Dixon was able to shoot a decent percentage with less talent around him last year he should be better this year if he gets some minns.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

hasoos said:


> In case you haven't been paying attention to current events, the Blazers still are not short on point guards. Right now the Blazers have 3 PG who are as good as Blake if not better, and 2 who have a huge amount more upside.
> 
> I still go back to last game and point out that the problem isn't MagLoire, it is who Nate has him teamed up with in the half court. When he and Zbo are in the game at the same time, they cause space problems on offense. This is also the exact reason I expect Aldridge to get playing time as soon as he is back, he can hit the outside jumper that Magloire can not, which will free up the team spacing better.



Uhh, we're not short on big-men either. Steve Blake is clearly better than Dickau and Rodriguez. And why do people talk about Blake as though he's a veteran? He's only been in the league 3 years, and has room to improve as well.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> Uhh, we're not short on big-men either. Steve Blake is clearly better than Dickau and Rodriguez. And why do people talk about Blake as though he's a veteran? He's only been in the league 3 years, and has room to improve as well.



Clearly Aye?

I think if you compare their stats, they are quite even. Also I believe when Dickau left last time he had a good season as a starter, that Blake has never equaled in his career. Rodriguez will clear any debate on this subject in the near future. :clown: Lets put it this way, after a mere 2 games I know he will leave his mark on this franchise as a fun player to watch.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Yega1979 said:


> Uhh, we're not short on big-men either. Steve Blake is clearly better than Dickau and Rodriguez. And why do people talk about Blake as though he's a veteran? He's only been in the league 3 years, and has room to improve as well.


I don't know if I'd say he's "Clearly" better. So far his stats this year haven't exactly been great (although, neither has Dickau or Serg's...but after 2 pre-season games and a few regular season games, I think most of us were ready to dump Stevo). 

Steve has room to improve, much in the same way Dickau does. Just not a lot.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Just got back from the game.

Yeah, they lost, but good lord has this team improved over last season. There were some defensive lapses, but I don't know if last year's squad comes back from 19 points down and then another double-digit 4th quarter deficit.

Roy was amazing. He got to the basket at will and played (mostly) smart basketball. Not much range, but he still did well.

Martell did pretty well and was active. He put the ball on the floor and drew a few fouls, then he had some big 3's. He's definitely improving.

Jack OWNED the third quarter. Such a shame he was in foul trouble.

But seriously, Zach was just ridiculous tonight. It looked like he did well on defense, he got his points, pulled down the rebounds ... but get this ... he didn't choke it away down the stretch. AND he hustled. AND he had good shot selection. I mean ... he had 3 turnovers, but his game was VERY VERY impressive.

Overall, yeah the team lost, but I came away impressed with the effort and see a lot of good things happening to this team if they're given time to gel.

Jamaal didn't impress AT ALL. He was DREADFUL when he was in there -- slow, sloppy, etc ... just not very good.

Joel didn't do too well, either, but I think that was mainly the Warriors' running game.

And all those turnovers!! Take away the 1st 8 minutes of the game, and you have a Blazers win. They just killed themselves with that. Kind of like last year.

Oh yeah ... one thing that really killed the team was leaving the Warriors open for 3-pointers. Of Golden State's 10 3-pointers, about 8 of them were wide open. Absolutely heart-breaking.


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

2k said:


> Whats up with not playing Dixon? I would rather see him off the bench then Dickau. Dixon was able to shoot a decent percentage with less talent around him last year he should be better this year if he gets some minns.


  :whatever:


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

2k said:


> Whats up with not playing Dixon? I would rather see him off the bench then Dickau. Dixon was able to shoot a decent percentage with less talent around him last year he should be better this year if he gets some minns.


I like Dixon, I'm glad that he was around last year with Blake working their magic on our very subpar team, but this year, we got Webster who's finally showing some NBA form, we got nba ready Roy, Jack who's also healthy and improved and needs those minutes to develop. Honestly, there's little place on this team for Dixon at the moment, other than a spark off the bench, or like tonight, where he was brought in where everyone else had fouled out.

The problem with tonight, and why I feel Nate was reluctant to put him in, was with the exception if Dickau, whom I believe everyone was hoping would get warmed up and break out of his gamelong shooting slump, everyone else in the guard positions was playing pretty well, and had a good rythm going. Dixon was put in at the end of the game when we needed firepower, unfortunately, he was ice cold from sitting so long, as was aparent with his early shot off the bench and horrible miss.

I just see Dixon as a quasi-veteran scorer we NEEDED last season, as we had really nothing decent to play at his position, not to mention he played well with Blake. Now, we got much more solid guys who need that playing time NOW to develop, and that leaves us with little need for Dixon, except as a backup plan / spark off the bench.

I'm sure, with the playing time Nate gave him last season, and how Dixon proved that he could contribute on a crappy team, that Nate would have him in the doghouse, it's just that the team is moving in a different direction.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

TheBlueDoggy said:


> I like Dixon, I'm glad that he was around last year with Blake working their magic on our very subpar team, but this year, we got Webster who's finally showing some NBA form, we got nba ready Roy, Jack who's also healthy and improved and needs those minutes to develop. Honestly, there's little place on this team for Dixon at the moment, other than a spark off the bench, or like tonight, where he was brought in where everyone else had fouled out.


If Dickau is taking ten shots then there should be a place for Dixon. I agree with you on Webster. I think the Blazers should start him and let Roy play both guard positions off the bench and some SF with Dixon getting about 15 minns to round out a 4 guard rotation. 



Also if you are talking about developing players for the future then don’t you play Dixon over Dickau?
I have nothing against Dickau as a backup PG on a team with existing chemistry ya know like a playoff team. With the Blazers I figure you have to play potential and Dixon has more potential to develop into a BJ Armstrong, Vernon Maxwell, or Vinny Johnson type contributor then Dickau who will always be streaky backup PG. The Blazers have little chemistry to lose. Besides I would figure playing next to Roy and knowing the system would make Dixon less of a chemistry hit them you normally take playing a tweener guard.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm sorry, but Dixon is really bad. Even if his shot is on and he shoots 40+% he gives that up and more defensively. The other major complaint I have with Juan is that as soon as he gets the ball the little offensive movement that this team has comes to a hault


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Dickau and Dixon provide different things. Dickau has better range but Dixon is better at getting his own shot. Both are streaky. Dixon is probably higher energy and has good hands for SG where Dickau is a more pure PG and better at running a team. Neither is a particularly good defender, particularly when having to defend taller SGs. Neither is good enough to really force Nate to play him, even on this team that'll be in the running for worst in the league.

This game I think Dickau got more PT both because he played (unexpectedly?) well last game and because the team was in shambles during the first quarter. The starting PG looked like a deer in headlights (though he went on to have a pretty good game) and the team needed someone to settle them down -- more of a slow-down QB than a "Slash" who usually looks to push things. For this game, I think Nate made the right call and I think it was a mistake to go to Dixon when he did, though it's easy to say that in hindsight.

Further, I think it'll be that way for at least a bit because Roy and Webster are playing _so_ well (and mostly at the SG/SF spots) and Jack, while doing pretty well, is still less reliable than some of the others.

2k, I'm still with you that I think Roy and Dixon might be a really good combination -- likely better than Roy and Dickau long-term (though even after tonight I'm feeling unexpectedly optimistic about Dickau). Maybe I'm crazy but I think Nate made the right choice for tonight. Roy's almost certainly the best guard this team has (and played well against Davis for stretches tonight) and he's still not yet the PG that Jack, Dickau, and even Rodriguez are. I think Nate's going to be needing to make that call game by game and I don't envy him that job as he's going to be second-guessed with every loss and regardless of who he goes with the team will lose more than they'll win. Still, they were in this game at the end and there weren't too many games I remember ending that well when it started with the Blazers down 5 to 24.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> I'm sorry, but Dixon is really bad. Even if his shot is on and he shoots 40+% he gives that up and more defensively. The other major complaint I have with Juan is that as soon as he gets the ball the little offensive movement that this team has comes to a hault



I agree, Dixon is a complete black hole. As soon as he gets the ball he is jackin it up.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I listened to the Warriors radio broadcast (a lot easier to pick up than Portland's). Some comments they made of interest:
Roy does not look or play like a rookie, he has an NBA body, he is not afraid to take a big shot, he is a very good ball handler.
Jack does not have great range but will get a lot of 3 point plays from "and one"; since he is so strong in the upper body he can be fouled and still hit his shot.
Zach is a lot slimmer and looks like he did "before he signed the big contract" (they could have said before he got injured but they could not be objective, god forbid). Said once he gets the ball in the paint he can't be stopped.
Said Nate gave the team a lot of freedom last year but it won't be like that this year; he expects players to do what they are told or they will sit.

Incidentally they also said the team could be sold or moved; obviously unaware that several months ago Paul Allen said he is not selling. 

My impressions: horrible start, tentative on offense, no flow, constant turnovers. I was thinking oh hell I just paid for tickets to see this team? Give credit, they did not put their heads down and give up the way we say last year. And remember, GS was playing their 4th preseason game and they, with the exception of Robison, all played together last year. 
In fact this game was a far worse message for the Warriors than the Blazers. Last year GSW repeatedly lost close games, often when they had leads. They were up 13 in the 4th quarter and won in OT, barely. One lucky shot by Portland and they lose. And they are definitely ahead of the curve in the sense that they are pretty much a veteran team, while the Blazers are just learning to play together.
Way too many fouls called!
Hard to cry over Troy Murphy getting hurt. I still remember how he took out Sheed with an elbow, Sheed had to leave early in the game with blood spurting into a towel while stupid Warrior fans called him a baby. Yeah, just pour out blood all over the floor?
Dickau was HORRIBLE! I mean, at least Magliore did not try 11 shots. I was not impressed with him his first time in town and still am not. No offense, no defense, doesn't pass, can't rebound.
All told, probably a more fun game than the ghastly 72-69 Houston/SA horror.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Fun game last night ... after the first quarter. I came away thoroughly impressed with Roy. The guy hasn't played a regular season game yet, but you can tell that he's already the floor leader when he's on the court ... which should be for as long as possible.

Outlaw had some positive things last night, but looked lost on defense more often than not. How does a guy play 37 minutes, have his man put up 32 points on him, and come away with zero personal fouls? 

All in all, this team looks like it will be fun to watch ... except for the times when they're absolutely painful to watch.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

the refing is getting silly to the point where the euro league is rougher and is more fun to watch!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

So... I passed up free tickets to last night's game because I have night classes... lo and behold, our professor lets us out early and I would have been able to attend. :curse: 

Anyway, I was very impressed by our young core last night. Roy sounded like he played extremely well... as did Jack, Zach, and Martell.

Had we had a big guy in there *cough* LaMarcus *cough* that could run the floor better *cough* Aldridge *cough* I think the outcome would have been better in our favor. I'm excited for him to make it onto the floor, Especially after seeing how poorly Magloire has played.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

SheedSoNasty said:


> So... I passed up free tickets to last night's game because I have night classes... lo and behold, our professor lets us out early and I would have been able to attend. :curse:
> 
> Anyway, I was very impressed by our young core last night. Roy sounded like he played extremely well... as did Jack, Zach, and Martell.
> 
> Had we had a big guy in there *cough* LaMarcus *cough* that could run the floor better *cough* Aldridge *cough* I think the outcome would have been better in our favor. I'm excited for him to make it onto the floor, Especially after seeing how poorly Magloire has played.


Joel and Jamaal got stripped repeatedly whenever they would make a move to the hoop in traffic. Aldridge is not the turnover machine that Jamaal is and Aldridge can run the floor. Playing Aldridge and Zach together should be effective since Aldridge can get out on the break far better than Zach can. 

Aldridge's ability to run the floor gives the Blazers their first mobile big since Sheed was traded.

The next two games will be interesting in that I do not see Jamaal and Zach being effective together on the offensive end. Jamaal wants the ball and requires the low post to operate, as does Zach. Jamaal would work better with Outlaw since Outlaw is mobile and can draw his defender away from the post. If JM is double teamed in the post, Outlaw is available for the mid range jumper.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Blazer Maven said:


> Joel and Jamaal got stripped repeatedly whenever they would make a move to the hoop in traffic. Aldridge is not the turnover machine that Jamaal is and Aldridge can run the floor. Playing Aldridge and Zach together should be effective since Aldridge can get out on the break far better than Zach can.
> 
> Aldridge's ability to run the floor gives the Blazers their first mobile big since Sheed was traded.
> 
> The next two games will be interesting in that I do not see Jamaal and Zach being effective together on the offensive end. Jamaal wants the ball and requires the low post to operate, as does Zach. Jamaal would work better with Outlaw since Outlaw is mobile and can draw his defender away from the post. If JM is double teamed in the post, Outlaw is available for the mid range jumper.


Good observations. It also makes you wonder, why are Joel and Jamaal trying to dribble to the hoop when they are the type of players that should be getting a delivery in a good position, or not receiving the ball at all.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I'm sorry, but Dixon is really bad. Even if his shot is on and he shoots 40+% he gives that up and more defensively. The other major complaint I have with Juan is that as soon as he gets the ball the little offensive movement that this team has comes to a hault



That’s because he had to start at SG last year. There are better players around him so he should get better looks and face shorter guards.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

I think that there is no doubt that you have to start Martell @ the 3! I like Outlaw, but he just looks so lost out there. One other thing.......I know Nate said he was gonna slow things down this year, but our guys sure looked comfortable pushing it. With our youth and athleticism, I think we should run like alot of the other teams in the west. Lastly, Roy is the real deal! The kid can play. He's got some things to work on(And it might just be nerves), like not getting a shot off at the end of regulation. But you can tell when someone knows how to play ball. The way he handles the rock and sees the court. He's gonna be special.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think that there is no doubt that you have to start Martell @ the 3! I like Outlaw, but he just looks so lost out there. One other thing.......*I know Nate said he was gonna slow things down this year*, but our guys sure looked comfortable pushing it. With our youth and athleticism, I think we should run like alot of the other teams in the west. Lastly, Roy is the real deal! The kid can play. He's got some things to work on(And it might just be nerves), like not getting a shot off at the end of regulation. But you can tell when someone knows how to play ball. The way he handles the rock and sees the court. He's gonna be special.


Did Nate really say he was going to slow things down this year? That's very disturbing if true. I dont think we could play any slower of a tempo then last year.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think that there is no doubt that you have to start Martell @ the 3! I like Outlaw, but he just looks so lost out there. One other thing.......I know Nate said he was gonna slow things down this year, but our guys sure looked comfortable pushing it. With our youth and athleticism, I think we should run like alot of the other teams in the west. Lastly, Roy is the real deal! The kid can play. He's got some things to work on(And it might just be nerves), like not getting a shot off at the end of regulation. But you can tell when someone knows how to play ball. The way he handles the rock and sees the court. He's gonna be special.


Definitely. I hope all these foul calls are just for the preseason, because if Jack, Martell and Roy can all stay out of foul trouble we have a chance to win around 30 games. 

Jack/Roy/Martell, IMO starting at the 1/2/3 just meshes right. Jack has the ability to hit the mid range J consistently while Roy can as well. Both are above average at taking it to the hoop and finishing and they both can drive and dish out to Martell for the three.

If Aldridge turns out to be a center and we decide to keep Zach we have a very good team and I don't know where to add depth come this draft. Our starting lineup:

Aldridge-Good shot blocker, decent rebounder, some post moves, has range out to around 17 feet.
Zach-Nearly unstoppable in the post, great rebounder, bad defender, range up to 3 point line.
Martell- Great shooter from both midrange and 3 point, average driving ability, good FT shooter.
Roy-Do it all. Good shooter, good passer, smart player. does everything well.
Jack-good passer, great defender, good penetrator, take take contact.

With Outlaw, Joel, being the only two players I see from the bench maybe still here when we start winning, they still contribute the things that our starting lineup isn't great at. Rebounding, blocking/defense and length. If in the next few drafts we can get versitile players that can come off the bench and do the little things the starters don't we are going to have a very good team on our hands once they mesh together.

:laugh: Man this game got me a little excited.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Did Nate really say he was going to slow things down this year? That's very disturbing if true. I dont think we could play any slower of a tempo then last year.


Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought he said at the beginning of camp that he wanted to capitalize on our 1 strength. And that strength is to use our size down low. I like it when we run. If for only the reason that it's more fun to watch!


----------



## baler (Jul 16, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Outlaw had some positive things last night, but looked lost on defense more often than not. How does a guy play 37 minutes, have his man put up 32 points on him, and come away with zero personal fouls?


Easy....McNuggets ZONE defense. The Blazers have played it terrible for years. Just man-up from now on!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

baler said:


> Easy....McNuggets ZONE defense. The Blazers have played it terrible for years. Just man-up from now on!



Yep, but that is what pre season is for. To work on stuff that you don't want to during the regular season.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

baler said:


> Easy....McNuggets ZONE defense. The Blazers have played it terrible for years. Just man-up from now on!


 While I agree with and second the comment Hasoos made, I have to add that you're making it sound like they've been bad at playing the zone for ten years. What I think is a more relevant point is that the Blazers have been a terrible team for roughly as long as they've been allowed to play a zone defense. Now that they're getting better size and the overall IQ of the team seems to be on the rise, I expect their zone defense will improve right along with most other aspects of the game.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> I think that there is no doubt that you have to start Martell @ the 3! I like Outlaw, but he just looks so lost out there. One other thing.......I know Nate said he was gonna slow things down this year, but our guys sure looked comfortable pushing it. With our youth and athleticism, I think we should run like alot of the other teams in the west. Lastly, Roy is the real deal! The kid can play. He's got some things to work on(And it might just be nerves), like not getting a shot off at the end of regulation. But you can tell when someone knows how to play ball. The way he handles the rock and sees the court. He's gonna be special.


The problem with playing Webster at the 3 is that his game is so different from Miles and Outlaw you have to run different sets whenever he is out there. Its not a huge deal but I would rather Roy play the 3 on offense. The guy had 9 rebounds last game.


----------

