# I think we'll get Morrison, regardless.



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Okay, so suppose the Blazers suddenly go on a tear and finish up around #6 in the Adam Morrison Sweepstakes...

Remember all those picks Nash has stockpiled in this year's draft? As in... our first rounder (which is going to be high), the Piston's first rounder (which will be late), and our 2nd rounder (again, high). Think those three picks won't be enough to pry the #1 out of someone else's hands (again, assuming we don't get it)? Well then, throw our 1st and 2nd rounders in 2007 in there as well!

Why not? We've got TONS of young talent now. We don't really *need* any of those picks, unless of course they bring us a legitimate potential franchise player like Morrison.

It will be very interesting to see how it all plays out.

PBF


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I could see The GM (Nash or his successor) pulling out the stops to get Morrison, going so far as to offer up Outlaw or even Jack and picks for Generic Scrub About To Be Waived and the #1.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i dont seeing us trading our 2007 pick in the strongest draft since 2003 but the we have the detroit pick I am hoping we dont need to trade our 30th and 33rd picks but trade them for a higher pick as we can get so we could draft morrison and a solid taller than zbo pf!


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

BlazerCaravan said:


> I could see The GM (Nash or his successor) pulling out the stops to get Morrison, going so far as to offer up Outlaw or even Jack and picks for Generic Scrub About To Be Waived and the #1.


I'm pretty sure Nash would. He's said several times that if you're a GM and you have a chance to get a franchise player, you pull out all the stops.

Kinda why I started this thread. I think Nash has a golden opportunity coming up, and no real reason not to go for it.

PBF


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> I'm pretty sure Nash would. He's said several times that if you're a GM and you have a chance to get a franchise player, you pull out all the stops.
> 
> Kinda why I started this thread. I think Nash has a golden opportunity coming up, and no real reason not to go for it.
> 
> PBF


Except for the fact that Morrison is likely NOT a franchise player or a big impact player. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Why trade numerous draft picks on a guy with zero athletic ability and defense weak like 7 days? He might turn out to be good but I don't see why we'd forfeit all our picks in the near future for him. If he comes along and is our best option come draft time then sure, draft him. He won't be drafted #1, I can guarantee that.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Did you just say that you would deal our 06 1st, Detroits 1st, our 06 and 07 2nd rounders and out 07 1st(Which will be high, and in a draft that will be compared to 03' IMO) for Adam Morrison? Would anyone even trade all those picks for Paul Pierce? Ludacris.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

From all I've seen and heard morrison is a fairly good shooter with no defensive skills and no motivation to play a team game. In other words, a less athletic version of Miles with less pigmentation.

If he weren't white and in a terribly weak draft year he wouldn't make the lottery.

I think this is a perfect opportunity to trade our pick for an excellent player.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> From all I've seen and heard morrison is a fairly good shooter with no defensive skills and no motivation to play a team game. In other words, a less athletic version of Miles with less pigmentation.
> 
> If he weren't white and in a terribly weak draft year he wouldn't make the lottery.
> 
> I think this is a perfect opportunity to trade our pick for an excellent player.


I agree, although I disagree with you on Miles.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

morrison plays none flashy D more of posiition D which gets better toward the end on the game, he is clutch more so than anyone in this draft and is a true leader on the court. 

why is everyone using the race card? I dont get it so if he wasnt white some of you would be drooling? cough gay cough aldridge cough

WHy do you say he dont play team ball? sounds like youve never watched him play cus when his shooting is off he starts passing the ball to his teammates, seriously I think some of you MUST watch the zags during the tourny.

what does it matter what skin color a player has if he is the highest score or one of the highest scorers that can dunk, make the big shots and defend his guy just enough to stop him at the key moments. Morrision shoots better than miles anyday and is smart enough to stop shooting when he is cold and starts passing to his team mates like Bastita. Morrision isnt a flashy like PP or Kobe or Miles but he normally gets the job done. 

Everyone harps on his defense why dont people harp on PP or any of the other high scoring offesive based players? If a player can put up 25 to 32 point i dont think it really matters if he plays ok defense cus you can let the other players worry about shutting down the players. lets see if we had zbo 20/10 high to 32/14 along with morrision getting 25/7 thats 40/17 to 57/21 and the other 7 to 8 players getting 10 each thats 110 to 137. not counting what webster, telfair and blake.

would you draft another sg this and trade dixon? i might be temped if we couldnt get a good pf i see this as a week center draft more than any position.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

There is no way I would trade next years #1 pick for any player in this years draft. That is not to say that I wouldn't make a trade, just that you are undervaluing next years #1pick. I would trade both this years #1s and the second rounder along with one player out of blake, jj, dixon, miles, theo, vk and a few others. Of course filler would be needed, but next years #1 is more valuable then ANY player we currently have on the blazers including Zach, Bassy, and Martel.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I have to start by admitting I do not follow men's college basketball. So please forgive me if the questions sound dumb. I know the guy plays for Gonzaga & has a mustache and that's about it.
So...
Position?
Size?
What if anything makes him a franchise player?
Lots of college stars have been role players or even busts in the NBA. I know there are no guarantees but what makes people think that he's more Stockton than Dickau? (to use other Gonzaga alums as examples of both)
Is he the kind of player who would make others on the team better? Right now I don't think anyone on the Blazers does that (at least not right now).
Would he be a team leader? Remember, that is a lot easier in college, especially a small private college where the team is more homogeneous than it is in the NBA where you have black, white, foreign born, veterans, kids all mixed together.
Is he coachable?
Other comments you'd like to add?


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

> From all I've seen and heard morrison is a fairly good shooter with no defensive skills and no motivation to play a team game. In other words, a less athletic version of Miles with less pigmentation.
> 
> If he weren't white and in a terribly weak draft year he wouldn't make the lottery.


The leading scorer in the nation doesn't need any excuse to be drafted in the NBA lottery. I suppose next you're going to tell us that J.J. Redick doesn't belong in the lottery either because he's also white?? Take your ridiculous racist notions about "pigmentation" and please go away.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Sorry, PBF, but I disagree. Morrison doesnt have the credentials to trade everything for regardless of outcome. I will give you that the #30 (DET)pick and our 2nd rounder (#33) mean little to our team. No player drafted at those spots will make our roster. So, yeah, give them away to sweeten a deal. 

But, our first round pick in '07 - with the possibility of it being a top pick - NO WAY. DON"T TRADE IT FOR ANYTHING OR ANYONE. You don't make that deal blindly without knowing how high a pick it is. Indiana learned that one back in 1978. They traded their first pick to us for Johnny Davis - turned out to be the #1 pick overall (Mychal Thompson).

Morrison would be a nice addition, especially on offense to this team. If he's picked it means Miles and Outlaw need new home teams. Keep Khryapa. But he isn't a franchise saving player by himself.

I'm hoping we select the best player available regardless of position, add him to the mix of Webster and Telfair (and maybe Outlaw) and HOPE we also secure the best draft position in 2007.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Sambonius said:


> Except for the fact that Morrison is likely NOT a franchise player or a big impact player. I could be wrong but I doubt it. Why trade numerous draft picks on a guy with zero athletic ability and defense weak like 7 days? He might turn out to be good but I don't see why we'd forfeit all our picks in the near future for him. If he comes along and is our best option come draft time then sure, draft him. He won't be drafted #1, I can guarantee that.


he's not the most athletically gifted fellow, but to discount his atheleticism and the reasons why he can score (it's not all just his outside shot) seems to speak of a lack of knowledge about him from you.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

MARIS61 said:


> From all I've seen and heard morrison is a fairly good shooter with no defensive skills and no motivation to play a team game. In other words, a less athletic version of Miles with less pigmentation.
> 
> If he weren't white and in a terribly weak draft year he wouldn't make the lottery.
> 
> I think this is a perfect opportunity to trade our pick for an excellent player.


you'e heard wrong then. Where have you heard he's he has no motivation to play a teame game? Thats laughable at best, that you actaully claim that. 

He's nothing like Miles. For one, he actually plays hard. For another, he actually can shoot (both fg's, ft's and 3 pointers) and he's improved his game every year significantly.

His game is nothing at all, even remotely, like Darius's.

If he was a black guy, and averaging 28+ ppg, and shooting the %'s he is, no one would give a **** about his defensive abilities, or his "lack of athleticism".

Who is the "excellent" player that the team can trade for? Honestly, we need to realize that we aren't going to be able to trade the lotto pick for an "excellent player".


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> ......Who is the "excellent" player that the team can trade for? Honestly, we need to realize that we aren't going to be able to trade the lotto pick for an "excellent player".


Not necessarily. But the excellent player would probably have an "excellent" contract as well. I don't see it happening.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I have to start by admitting I do not follow men's college basketball. So please forgive me if the questions sound dumb. I know the guy plays for Gonzaga & has a mustache and that's about it.
> So...
> Position?


SF, altho he does play the P-SF at the end of games (point small forward)


> Size?


6'8"ish...200-220 (depending on who you ask)



> What if anything makes him a franchise player?


I don't know what makes someone a "franchise player" (which is why Ive never said that about him) but I'd bet too much is placed on how athletically gifted the player is. He hits clutch shots, and doesn't give up even when he's playing "bad" (basically, he had 4 sub-par games this year). 

I'm not sure if thats what makes him one, but he has as good a chance at being one as the other 3 "top picks" do. Gay might be faster, and more "athletic" (read: he can dunk! wahoo!) but he's not a better player (as of now. he might be, or he might not). 

Gays pick will be more on what he *might* be than what he is, whereas Morrisons will be more on what he IS than what he might be. And what Morrison IS now, is better than what Gay is now, and what Morrison might be, isn't enuogh worse than what Gay might be (read: both might be nothing like what they "might" be).



> Lots of college stars have been role players or even busts in the NBA. I know there are no guarantees but what makes people think that he's more Stockton than Dickau? (to use other Gonzaga alums as examples of both)


I don't think Dickau was much more than a 3 pointer (at least, more so than Morrison).

60% of dickau's makes his senior year (at the age of 23 btw) were 3's (and 58% of his shots).

I've heard people also bring up Frahm as a comparison, but I think that shows people just see "hm, another white guy from Gonzaga. He must be like him". Frahms game was nothing like Morrisons (Frahm was just a 3 point shooter, who was streaky as hell).



> Is he the kind of player who would make others on the team better? Right now I don't think anyone on the Blazers does that (at least not right now).


Altho I don't personally know, it sounds like he demands his teammates be better. *post edit*

He also, based soley on the fact he's the best player on his team, makes his teammates better. But not just because he's better, but because he moves around the court, passes to them, and distracts the other teams players 


> Would he be a team leader? Remember, that is a lot easier in college, especially a small private college where the team is more homogeneous than it is in the NBA where you have black, white, foreign born, veterans, kids all mixed together.


they have foreign born (French born Black player Turiaf last year, and Brazilian born JP Batista and French Canadian born Pierre Marie Altidor-Cespedes, also black, this year). I think there's another black kid on the team, but I'm not sure of his name...



> Is he coachable?
> Other comments you'd like to add?


I'd bet he's coachable. He's a coaches son, and has to be very disciplined because of his diabetes.

if he a star? Who knows. He could be a much better player than most fans give him credit for (see: channing frye) and he might be a bust. But the players that he's compared to, are mostly discredited BECAUSE they were compared to Larry Bird (Wally Skkeiebeiwbickac, and Keith Van Horn.)

But I'd take Wallys shooting with Adams stones, 7 days a week and twice on sunday.

Is he a "must have" pick? No. But neither is Bargani (who basically is a taller version of Adam) or Aldridge or Gay.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Ever notice that white guys get tagged with the "lousy defense" thing more than black guys? It's a stereotype that gets thrown around much too casually. The assumption seems to be that if a guy is white then he's automatically slow and a poor leaper, and therefore he can't guard anyone. 

Keep in mind that Charles Barkley was voted worst defensive player in the NBA by his peers, and yet he is regarded as one of the best power forwards in league history. I see no reason why Morrison can't overcome the "bad defense" label as well and become a star player in the NBA.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Thanks, Hap.
By franchise player, what I mean is the guy you build your team around. He (or she) is unquestionably the centerpiece. Examples are Shaq, MJ, Tim Duncan, maybe LeBron. Not enough to be good, or very good, or even great; I would not call Kobe Bryant a franchise player. But clearly although they traded 3 or 4 players to get him the Heat are better with Shaq. A franchise player is someone you put on a team and you clearly see the results. I'm sorry I can't explain it more clearly than that. The Bulls without Jordan in his 2 years of retirement were still a good team. But compare them to the Bulls with Jordan. No comparison. 
Sure, you sometimes get a "freak" team like the Pistons, who are the perfect assemblage, a well made machine with all the parts fitting. But aside from that if you look at serious contenders, you find a clear #1 guy. I want a clear #1 guy on the Blazers. Not a good player. They have good players. I want at least another Clyde.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Thanks, Hap.
> By franchise player, what I mean is the guy you build your team around. He (or she) is unquestionably the centerpiece. Examples are Shaq, MJ, Tim Duncan, maybe LeBron. Not enough to be good, or very good, or even great; I would not call Kobe Bryant a franchise player. But clearly although they traded 3 or 4 players to get him the Heat are better with Shaq. A franchise player is someone you put on a team and you clearly see the results. I'm sorry I can't explain it more clearly than that. The Bulls without Jordan in his 2 years of retirement were still a good team. But compare them to the Bulls with Jordan. No comparison.
> Sure, you sometimes get a "freak" team like the Pistons, who are the perfect assemblage, a well made machine with all the parts fitting. But aside from that if you look at serious contenders, you find a clear #1 guy. I want a clear #1 guy on the Blazers. Not a good player. They have good players. I want at least another Clyde.


he could be. There are players who didn't start out being obvious "centre pieces" (drexler for one).

I think he could be a key cog to the team tho. Im not sure they could "build around him", but than again, the same can be said about Bargani, Aldridge and Gay.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

crandc i suggest to tape or watch the ncaa tourniment this year and specially the zags game on thursday iiirc.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Problem, Utherhimo, is that I cover the women's tourney. I can't watch 2 TV's at once, especially since I only have one!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'd love to see us get Morrison. "The defense collapses on Zach, he dishes it out to Morrison... SWISH!!" All night long.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> Ever notice that white guys get tagged with the "lousy defense" thing more than black guys? It's a stereotype that gets thrown around much too casually. The assumption seems to be that if a guy is white then he's automatically slow and a poor leaper, and therefore he can't guard anyone.


No...guys with lousy defense get tagged with the 'lousy defense' thing.

I say Morrison plays bad defense because I've watched him play in 50-60 games over the last 3 years. It's not that he isn't quick enough or a good enough leaper to play defense, he just doesn't seem to want to exert energy on the defensive end. Morrison thinks about one thing and one thing only...scoring. He'd be great on the Phoenix Suns.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I'd love to see us get Morrison. "The defense collapses on Zach, he dishes it out to Morrison... SWISH!!" All night long.


I thought that was going to be Martell's job? 

I'll believe a team can contend with poor team D the first time I see it. It was so frustrating for me watching teams taking advantage of Damon all those years, its amazing to me that some here try to marginalize the importance of getting guys who can hold their own. One subpar defender is hard enough to cover for, let alone several. While both Adam and Zach have ok size at their respective forward spots, both are obviously subpar athletically. When Zach has to rotate to cover a 3 or 5, it's a terrible mismatch... I see the same thing when Adam gets switched to guarding a 2 or 4, and you know that opposing teams would exploit this to no end. I'm all for drafting Adam if he's the best player available when Portland drafts, but I'm certainly not for it from a chemistry standpoint. 

Future guards... Sebastian has the athleticism but not the size, and Martell??? well, he's a ways off but I have my hopes of him being ok someday. A defensive stud like Oden could cover a lot of his teammates shortcomings, but obviously his acquisition by Portland is far from a given. IMO the club lucky enough to be able to draft him will make their GM look very very smart.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> No...guys with lousy defense get tagged with the 'lousy defense' thing.
> 
> I say Morrison plays bad defense because I've watched him play in 50-60 games over the last 3 years. It's not that he isn't quick enough or a good enough leaper to play defense, he just doesn't seem to want to exert energy on the defensive end. Morrison thinks about one thing and one thing only...scoring. He'd be great on the Phoenix Suns.


yah, cause we don't need scoring here.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> yah, cause we don't need scoring here.


Yeah, cause in the NBA, you can only score OR defend...never both. 

Obviously we need scoring. We need defense even more. We have plenty of overmatched, underathletic defenders on this team as it stants right now. Guys that don't apppear to be going anywhere in the near future. 

Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, Lamarcus Aldridge all look like they have the ability to score AND defend.

Like STOMP said above...if he's the best available when we pick...we could do a lot worse than Adam Morrison, but good offense doesn't always make up for bad defense.


----------



## cpt.napalm (Feb 23, 2005)

I think morrison would help make a perfect offensive set for us:

Telfair: Distribute/Slash
Webster: 3's/screens pick/roll
Morrison: Mid range/free throw line
Zach: Post
Joel: Wait for the boards/scraps/screens

We would be able to space the floor perfectly and be set to grab the boards with Joel/Zach down low wherethey need to be.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

then tape it crandc


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

cpt.napalm said:


> I think morrison would help make a perfect offensive set for us:
> 
> Telfair: Distribute/Slash
> Webster: 3's/screens pick/roll
> ...


If Przybilla could stay healthy, he could average 8 blocks per game with that defensive lineup.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

ProudBFan said:


> Well then, throw our 1st and 2nd rounders in 2007 in there as well!


I couldn't possibly fathom such a cavalier action with such a valuable asset.

The way this team is currently structured. The way the proven players are overpaid. The way none on the rookie deals has shown they are possible all-star material. The way the franchise is bleeding money and will have to keep a lid on player salaries for a long time;

the single most valuable Player asset the Blazers now posess is their 1st rounder in 2007, a very probable high lotto pick, with a good shot at #1, the year Oden comes out.

The opposite of your suggestion, I have LONG said the Blazers should trade OUT of the 2006 draft, if at all possible, for another pick in the 2007 draft. (No longer a viable option)

Of course, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

STOMP said:


> I thought that was going to be Martell's job?
> 
> STOMP


Last I checked, having more than one good shooter wouldnt be a bad thing.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Yeah, cause in the NBA, you can only score OR defend...never both.


yep, and in college if you don't play hard-core defense, you'll never be a good defender in the NBA, especially if you're white.


> Obviously we need scoring. We need defense even more. We have plenty of overmatched, underathletic defenders on this team as it stants right now. Guys that don't apppear to be going anywhere in the near future.
> 
> Bargnani, Tyrus Thomas, Lamarcus Aldridge all look like they have the ability to score AND defend.
> 
> Like STOMP said above...if he's the best available when we pick...we could do a lot worse than Adam Morrison, but good offense doesn't always make up for bad defense.


able to and willing to, able to and willing to.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I sure hope we don't get Morrison. He looks live Keith Van Horn to me, or maybe a less skilled version of Wally Szerbiak


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> yep, and in college if you don't play hard-core defense, you'll never be a good defender in the NBA, especially if you're white.


The fact that Morrison is white has nothing to do with anything. Why do you feel the need to bring that up? (Particularly when you consider that my favorite prospect in this draft is white.)

But, really...name a player who was a poor defender in college that later blossomed into even a slightly above average defender at the NBA level. I can't think of any. I don't think there ARE any. 



Hap said:


> able to and willing to, able to and willing to.


That's not much of an argument. 

Notice how I didn't include Rudy Gay on my list? He's the one who may not have the willingness to improve his defense (although he's currently better defensively than Morrison.) All three of the players I mentioned have shown the ability AND willingness to play defense. All three are hard workers. All three have more natural ability to play defense. All three have shown solid ability on the offensive end too.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Draco said:


> I sure hope we don't get Morrison. He looks live Keith Van Horn to me, or maybe a less skilled version of Wally Szerbiak


Van Horn? Their games arent even close, IMO. The Wally comparison doesnt seem too far off. But I think Morrison is a better shooter, although Wally seems more athletic... Wally has suprised me a few times with some impressive dunks. Wally always came across as "soft" to me, I dont get that impression for Morrison.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> But, really...name a player who was a poor defender in college that later blossomed into even a slightly above average defender at the NBA level. I can't think of any. I don't think there ARE any.


iirc, wasn't stacey augmon mostly offense in college? 

I can't come up with many, not because there aren't any, but because it's a deceptive kind of argument. In some cases, players who didn't play defense in college (lets say tracey murray) were dumber than a post-it-note, and were content just being a guy who can shoot 3's.



> That's not much of an argument.


yes it is. Darius has the ability to be a good defender, or even great. but he's not willing to. 

Shee had the ability to be the best PF in the game, but wasn't willing to. 

Ray Allen obviously has the ability to be a good defender, but he's not willing to.

Morrison has the ability (it's not like he's frankenstein's monster, or Preist Lauderdale). If he's willing to, will make a huge difference. 



> Notice how I didn't include Rudy Gay on my list? He's the one who may not have the willingness to improve his defense (although he's currently better defensively than Morrison.) All three of the players I mentioned have shown the ability AND willingness to play defense. All three are hard workers. All three have more natural ability to play defense. All three have shown solid ability on the offensive end too.


Morrison has show the ability and willingness. Not 40 minutes a night, but he does have it.

As for Bargani, I've only seen clips, and clips always show the positive more than the negative.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Does Morrison remind any of you of former Duck Luke Jackson? Same size, good shooters, not the best athletes (by NBA standards), and questionable defense.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Morrison seems to have unbelievable leadership qualities, something that sets him appart from all the other guys mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Hap said:


> he's not the most athletically gifted fellow, but to discount his atheleticism and the reasons why he can score (it's not all just his outside shot) seems to speak of a lack of knowledge about him from you.


I didn't say he wouldn't be a good player but I really doubt he is going to fulfill the potential of most #1 picks. He isn't that superstar you want to depend on. He might end up being a really good player but never a superstar. That's why I wouldn't draft him with the first pick. Maybe 4th or 5th as long as guys like Aldridge and Bargnani are gone.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> iirc, wasn't stacey augmon mostly offense in college?


No. He never averaged over 16.5 ppg in college, and only 13.9 for his career at UNLV. He made the 1988 Olympic team team as a defensive stopper.



> I can't come up with many, not because there aren't any, but because it's a deceptive kind of argument. In some cases, players who didn't play defense in college (lets say tracey murray) were dumber than a post-it-note, and were content just being a guy who can shoot 3's.


I disagree. You can't come up with many (any!) because they don't exist.

It's hard to be a good defender at the NCAA level, it's even harder to be so at the NBA level, and it's almost impossible to make the leap from a bad NCAA defender to a good NBA one.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Does Morrison remind any of you of former Duck Luke Jackson? Same size, good shooters, not the best athletes (by NBA standards), and questionable defense.


yes and no. Luke was good, but he wasn't even the best player in the conference his senior year, let alone possibly the best player in the nation.

I dnot think Luke has the ability to create shots like Morrison does, nor does he have the killer instinct (as much as that word seems to be thrown around willy nilly). 

Luke was a better rebounder, and distributor (but thats because he played playmaker more) but he's not on the same level.

I think Morrison is a ton more like Reggie Miller than Luke Jackson.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I disagree. You can't come up with many (any!) because they don't exist.
> 
> It's hard to be a good defender at the NCAA level, it's even harder to be so at the NBA level, and it's almost impossible to make the leap from a bad NCAA defender to a good NBA one.
> 
> Ed O.


so there's never been a player who's been a so-so defender in college, to be an adequate one in the NBA?

well than we should just pass on a lot of players than, because history means that he'll never be anything.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

First off, I dissagree with the assertion that Morrison is a poor defender. He is much better then he was last year, and at the end of games he is often the one stealing the ball, blocking the shot, or just forcing his player to pass. He is playing alongside a six foot SG and a fix foot one inch pg. I would blame much of the poor D on a combination of his teammates and the system that the zags play. I agree that he is not a monster defender or anything near that, but I think that he plays decent D and is amazing on the O side. I think that his D would be better in the NBA because he would not be asked to score %40 of the teams point every night. Plus he would be moving into a system that stressed D 10 times more then the zags does. 

Does this mean that I think we should grab him with the #1 pick? Not sure yet. Right now I go too and fro between Morrison and Gay mostly, with Aldridge and Barganini sometimes squeaking in. Today my top four picks would go (and this is different from tomorrow and yesterday)
1) Gay
2) Morrison
3) Aldridge
4) Barganini

Are any of them worth trading next years pick unprotected? No Friggen way!


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> iirc, wasn't stacey augmon mostly offense in college? .


No. He averaged 2.5 steals and 1 block per game. He was matched up against the best offensive player on the opposing team every game. In my opinion, he was probably the best defender in college basketball that year. Sure, he averaged like 16 pts a game, but that was mostly three point shooting. 



Hap said:


> I can't come up with many, not because there aren't any, but because it's a deceptive kind of argument. In some cases, players who didn't play defense in college (lets say tracey murray) were dumber than a post-it-note, and were content just being a guy who can shoot 3's..


And in many cases, they were bad at defense because of physical limitations, such as poor lateral footspeed. 



Hap said:


> yes it is. Darius has the ability to be a good defender, or even great. but he's not willing to.
> 
> Shee had the ability to be the best PF in the game, but wasn't willing to.
> 
> Ray Allen obviously has the ability to be a good defender, but he's not willing to.


It IS a bad argument because I didn't mention people like Darius Miles, Sheed or Ray Allen (or Rudy Gay.) I only mentioned three players (Bargnani, Thomas and Aldridge,) each of whom has shown WILLINGNESS and ABILITY to play strong defense at the college level.



Hap said:


> Morrison has the ability (it's not like he's frankenstein's monster, or Preist Lauderdale). If he's willing to, will make a huge difference.
> 
> Morrison has show the ability and willingness. Not 40 minutes a night, but he does have it.


Willingness, maybe. (He does take a LOT of plays off defensively, because he's saving energy for the offensive end, but I digress.) But he has clearly NOT shown the ability. He sucks at playing defense right now. He's slow and he doesn't jump that well. He gets taken off the dribble a lot. He doesn't rebound very well. He's just not a good defensive player and it's because he simply doesn't have the ability to be a good defender. 



Hap said:


> As for Bargani, I've only seen clips, and clips always show the positive more than the negative.


In Bargnani's case, so do the games.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> so there's never been a player who's been a so-so defender in college, to be an adequate one in the NBA?


Are you intentionally asking a different question than the one I'm responding to?

I'm not saying average to average. I'm saying sub-average in the NCAAs to above-average in the NBA.

As to whether there has EVER been one: not that I know of. Not that I've ever seen anyone show me. Doesn't mean the man or men have never existed. Show me one and prove me wrong.



> well than we should just pass on a lot of players than, because history means that he'll never be anything.


Again: not sure if you're twisting things on purpose or just getting confused.

If Morrison ends up as a sub-par NBA defender, I don't think that many people here think he'd be worth the #1 pick in the draft. If Morrison becomes an above-average defender in the NBA, he will be much more valuable and more worthy of a tip-top pick.

Morrison backers (like you and zags) seem to take it on faith that he will improve defensively. Fork and I are less sure of it and actually find it unlikely, given the dearth (utter lack?) of players that have made a similar defensive jump in the NBA historically.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> It IS a bad argument because I didn't mention people like Darius Miles, Sheed or Ray Allen (or Rudy Gay.) I only mentioned three players (Bargnani, Thomas and Aldridge,) each of whom has shown WILLINGNESS and ABILITY to play strong defense at the college level.


yes, but I was using them as samples of players that fit into my argument.


> Willingness, maybe. (He does take a LOT of plays off defensively, because he's saving energy for the offensive end, but I digress.) But he has clearly NOT shown the ability. He sucks at playing defense right now. He's slow and he doesn't jump that well. He gets taken off the dribble a lot. He doesn't rebound very well. He's just not a good defensive player and it's because he simply doesn't have the ability to be a good defender.


he's not a bad jumper (but jumping is overrated). it's not like he just stands there and lets players go around him. He's not that slow, and as i said, he's not a bad jumper. I'm not sure if his rebounding really proves he's a good or bad defender. 

plus, I don't really care if he's a bruce bowen defender, I'd be happy if he was a travis outlaw defender.



> In Bargnani's case, so do the games.


cept the games where he has so-so games, right? Because if you want to go on the games showing the good, I'd point out the games where a college player goes off as proof too.

but whatever. certain people on this board will dislike whatever player a seemingly "majority" of the board likes in the draft. Last year, certain board members didn't like Green because certain board members did. This year, it's morrison. Some board members like him,s o therefore, some won't. They'll come up with their own personal opinions about his "deficiencies" despite the fact they're true of all the players coming out of college.

but whatever. you think he'll always suck on defense, I don't. I think he'll become good enough to not be a problem. And I think his offense could more than make up for that.

Im just saying that Bargani, Gay or Aldridge (or anyone else you might've mentioned, so you don't have to keep bringing up that I mentioned guys you didn't) have holes in their games too, and they too will have to improve things to justify their picks. it's not like they're "closer" to being "real" than anyone else is.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Hap said:


> I think Morrison is a ton more like Reggie Miller than Luke Jackson.


He reminds me of a less athletic Glenn Robinson without the rebounding or passing.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are you intentionally asking a different question than the one I'm responding to?
> 
> I'm not saying average to average. I'm saying sub-average in the NCAAs to above-average in the NBA.


who said anything about above average?



> Morrison backers (like you and zags) seem to take it on faith that he will improve defensively. Fork and I are less sure of it and actually find it unlikely, given the dearth (utter lack?) of players that have made a similar defensive jump in the NBA historically.
> 
> Ed O.


well there's hasnt been a white kid who scored 28 points per game and (potentially) won the POTY ina long time. so I guess we'll have to compare things to that guy, and it'll have to be like that..

btw, Im not, and have not been, saying that he'll be a great defender, or an above average defender. but that he'll be good enough that it won't be a problem.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> He reminds me of a less athletic Glenn Robinson without the rebounding or passing.


He reminds me of Wally Szczerbiak with better handles.

Ed O.


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

If Morrison ends up being a *GREAT SCORER* then refs will find a way to keep him in the game just like all of the other stars that get prima donna calls. The question is; is he gonna be that great of a scorer in the NBA?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> who said anything about above average?


Um, Fork. When he said, "But, really...name a player who was a poor defender in college that later blossomed into even a slightly above average defender at the NBA level. I can't think of any. I don't think there ARE any. "

Which is what you replied to.



> well there's hasnt been a white kid who scored 28 points per game and (potentially) won the POTY ina long time. so I guess we'll have to compare things to that guy, and it'll have to be like that..


What is the deal with you and him being white, Hap? Why on EARTH should we limit who we compare him to with other white players? We'll compare him to similarly skilled (and limited) players. Whether that guy is white or black is irrelevant.

Looking, then, at some top scorers that were contenders or winners of NCAA PoTY honors...

In 1999 Wally Szczerbiak got over 24 ppg and 30 ppg in the tournament and finished as Naismith, Robertson, and Wooden finalists (placing third in the Wooden voting). Glenn Robinson won the Naismith in 1994 while averaging over 30 ppg in a much better conference... as Fork alluded to, he was a more complete player than Morrison (10.1 rpg--although I'm not sure Morrison's an inferior passer). Lionel Simmons won it in 1990 after getting 26.5 ppg (and 11 rpg) as a senior after getting 28.4 ppg (and 11.4 rpg) as a junior. 

Top scorers as player of the year candidates are uncommon, for sure. But more common than players taking a step up defensively at the NBA level.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BIG Q said:


> If Morrison ends up being a *GREAT SCORER* then refs will find a way to keep him in the game just like all of the other stars that get prima donna calls. The question is; is he gonna be that great of a scorer in the NBA?


I think thats true of all of the top 4 picks (well, maybe not great scorers). It depends greatly on how he (and the others) adapt to the NBA game. 

If they stay as they are now, and don't show any interest in improving their game (and the ability TO improve, as just showing interest obviously isn't the key) they'll all be so-so players.

each has the tools to become a solid player, but it's what they do with those tools and how they improve on them (and the deficiencies of their game) that can make the difference (that and how smart/bball iq they are).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Um, Fork. When he said, "But, really...name a player who was a poor defender in college that later blossomed into even a slightly above average defender at the NBA level. I can't think of any. I don't think there ARE any. "
> 
> Which is what you replied to.


that was trying to make what I said into something I didn't.



> What is the deal with you and him being white, Hap? Why on EARTH should we limit who we compare him to with other white players? We'll compare him to similarly skilled (and limited) players. Whether that guy is white or black is irrelevant.


it should be, but sometimes I doubt it is (not necessarily you)



> Looking, then, at some top scorers that were contenders or winners of NCAA PoTY honors...
> 
> In 1999 Wally Szczerbiak got over 24 ppg and 30 ppg in the tournament and finished as Naismith, Robertson, and Wooden finalists (placing third in the Wooden voting). Glenn Robinson won the Naismith in 1994 while averaging over 30 ppg in a much better conference... as Fork alluded to, he was a more complete player than Morrison (10.1 rpg--although I'm not sure Morrison's an inferior passer). Lionel Simmons won it in 1990 after getting 26.5 ppg (and 11 rpg) as a senior after getting 28.4 ppg (and 11.4 rpg) as a junior.


I'd say that, outside of Simmons who's career was cut short due to injuries, iirc, those aren't terribly bad players. Plus, wasn't Simmons a post player more so than a wing player.

Glenn Robinson was a good player, but I think Morrison could at least become a respectable defender, whereas Robinson couldn't. And i don't know if Robinson had the "take the team on my shoulders" type of mentality.

as for Wally Skbekrbiack, I'd take his game with a little more agressiveness.

as the "top pick" in most drafts? probably not. But this isn't "most drafts". there is no clear cut superstar.

plus, there's a lot going into this draft that we fans aren't privvy too. Literally thousands of hours of tapes, notes, and tests. Not to mention private work-outs. For all we know, Morrison might be a much better defender than he shows, but he's not asked to play defense (which, imho, is a potential down-fall of the Bulldogs). 

Just like Webster showed he was a lot more than what we fans thought he was, in private work-outs. The same is true of Bargani, Gay, Morrison and Aldridge (assuming all 4 come out).

We could be in for a surprise (as both sides of the coin seem to think we know more about the player than we really do). Morrison might suck, and he might be the best player in this years draft and a huge surprise in the draft. Same with Gay, Bargani and Aldridge. Hell, Redick might be a surprise too.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

stat line for jimme m  

Adam Morrison Gonzaga 30 9.3 18.7 49.8 2.3 5.3 43.7 7.5 9.6 77.5 1.5 4.0 5.5 1.7 2.3 1.1 0.4 2.0 28.4 

I would rather have morrison than gay we already a guy like him OUTLAW and gay disappears like miles, Morrison steps up at the end up games gay doesnt.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

This topic has been beaten to death...

Morrison isn't the greatest defender at the college level, but to think that he is not going to improve (both with coaching and maturity) over time is absurd....

People who are saying this have some kind of subconscious bigotry going on in there mind....(he is white, therefore he has no upside)....LAME

Many players have had solid NBA hall of fame caliber careers without showing a lick of defense anyways...so if he remains average it wont be the end of the world...Those of you clinging on to use his defense as some kind crutch for not drafting him need to get a clue....This team sucks at offense and defense, so to draft Gay (who is all upside, disappears in games and is half the offensive player Morrison is) or Aldridge (a player who has suffered a major injury early in his career, and offensively disappears) or Pau Ga errrr...Andrea Bargningna (who can't even get significant minutes in the Euroleagues)....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

for all the running, and moving he does on offense (to either get free, or just move around) I think it shows he can get around if he needs to.

That if he's willing to (which I think he at least is willing enough to be a decent defender) is the biggest question. If he just camped outside the 3 point line, and didn't move without the ball, I think it'd show he's not willing to put out any effort.

It's not the "sure fire" sign that he can play defense, or will, but it is a sign. Obviously he can move and get around.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> This topic has been beaten to death...
> 
> Morrison isn't the greatest defender at the college level, but to think that he is not going to improve (both with coaching and maturity) over time is absurd....
> 
> People who are saying this have some kind of subconscious bigotry going on in there mind....(he is white, therefore he has no upside)....LAME


Umm, I think you should tread lightly when you make such bold, sweeping and antagonistic comments. Making such disparaging comments and playing the race card almost immediately, IMHO, devalues any further comments you make.

Since you've obviously seen more of Morrison than anyone else on this board, why don't you try giving us all the honest assessment on his strengths and weaknesses in a paragraph or two? Is there any case you can see for us NOT drafting Morrison?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Umm, I think you should tread lightly when you make such bold, sweeping and antagonistic comments. Making such disparaging comments and playing the race card almost immediately, IMHO, devalues any further comments you make.
> 
> *Since you've obviously seen more of Morrison than anyone else on this board, why don't you try giving us all the honest assessment on his strengths and weaknesses in a paragraph or two? Is there any case you can see for us NOT drafting Morrison?*



I've done so hundreds of times...


and BTW, look up the word subconscious...


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

What do you think his weakness are? Who would you draft if we cant get him? Would you trade all the picks in the next 2 years for him?


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I've done so hundreds of times...
> 
> 
> and BTW, look up the word subconscious...


Thanks for the suggestion but I've actually seen the words before. Subconscious actions are also indicators of an inner motive or belief so you're still implying the person exists with that frame of reference. But whatever...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Morrison isn't the greatest defender at the college level, but to think that he is not going to improve (both with coaching and maturity) over time is absurd....
> 
> People who are saying this have some kind of subconscious bigotry going on in there mind....(he is white, therefore he has no upside)....LAME


Subconscious bigotry? That's incredibly insulting. 

First of all, why is it that you (and other Morrison advocates) continue to bring up his race? Is that really important? I say Morrison is slow and can't jump because...he's slow and can't jump. I've watched enough games to see that that is a fact. Subconscious bigotry...hmmm...I'm subconsciously a bigot, because I want the Blazers to draft a white guy (Bargnani) first overall and because if certain players were gone, I'd consider Morrison with a 3rd or 4th overall pick. Hmmmmm....what a subconscious bigot I am. LAME.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

Agreed. He IS slow. He CANT jump and he sure as heck cant DEFEND either.

Their is nothing racist about saying black athletes are more physically talented than white athletes, because they simply are. It has to do with both the slave trade and the differences in muscle.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Subconscious bigotry? That's incredibly insulting.
> 
> First of all, why is it that you (and other Morrison advocates) continue to bring up his race? Is that really important? I say Morrison is slow and can't jump because...he's slow and can't jump. I've watched enough games to see that that is a fact. Subconscious bigotry...hmmm...I'm subconsciously a bigot, because I want the Blazers to draft a white guy (Bargnani) first overall and because if certain players were gone, I'd consider Morrison with a 3rd or 4th overall pick. Hmmmmm....what a subconscious bigot I am. LAME.


I continue to bring up his race?....When else have I EVER brought up his race....

He can jump and is faster than most give him credit for....I've seen him throw down some good dunks, even in people's faces...but whats the point in me bringing it up, when your mind set is set that he is slow and unathletic....


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Agreed. He IS slow. He CANT jump and he sure as heck cant DEFEND either.


actually, he can jump. and he's not that slow. Just saying "is" in capital letters does not make it so.


> Their is nothing racist about saying black athletes are more physically talented than white athletes, because they simply are. It has to do with both the slave trade and the differences in muscle.


prejudice and racist aren't the same. I think a lot of whats being said about him, it just repeated misnomers that people who don't like zagsfan praising him, are using against him.

evidence of this? "he can't jump".


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

if you can dunk you can jump


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

ThatBlazerGuy said:


> Agreed. He IS slow. He CANT jump and he sure as heck cant DEFEND either.
> 
> Their is nothing racist about saying black athletes are more physically talented than white athletes, because they simply are. It has to do with both the slave trade and the differences in muscle.


Yeah, we sure saw a preponderance of black athletes in the Winter Olympics.


----------

