Blazers sign Mo Williams

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
handiman said:
Olshey is a friggin' magician, nuff said.

Question is, can he continue this success long-term once he's further removed from his AAU days and has no connection to all the 30 year olds?
Click to expand...

It'll be tough until those 30 year olds all become coaches... then it'll be easier again.
 
magnifier661 said:
I used to think that Roy's number should have been retired, but now I think its pretty stupid. Roy, although great, didn't play long enough to warrant the honor.
Click to expand...

I realize that Mo Lucas was part of a title team, but he only played 4.5 years for the Blazers, which includes one year at the end of his career.

Dave Twardzik only played for the Blazers for 4 seasons...
 
Boise Blazer said:
Anyone have any issues with Mo wearing number 7? Quite a bit of drama on twitter about it? I personally dont care but Im surprised at how many people do care.
Click to expand...

No issues here. Hope he does the number proud!
 
I'm in awe at what Olshey has accomplished in only about 2 months. I thought Whitsitt was good, but Olshey has gotten us some very good players without giving up anything. I can see us winning 15 to 20 more games this season.
 
e_blazer said:
I've never understood the concept of retiring numbers. Given the limited quantity of numerals that fit on jerseys, it seems like it would only be a matter of time before they're used up. Seems to me that it would be equally honoring to hang the jersey with the player's name, but to continue to allow the number to be used by other players.
Click to expand...

Precedent has been set in Portland to retire jerseys for no reason. Dave Twardzik played 4 seasons for the team and was lucky to play one of them with a healthy Lucas and Walton. For that, his number is retired.
 
PapaG said:
I realize that Mo Lucas was part of a title team, but he only played 4.5 years for the Blazers, which includes one year at the end of his career.

Dave Twardzik only played for the Blazers for 4 seasons...
Click to expand...

I understand, but many argue that those players shouldn't have received retired numbers. Even Walton didn't play long enough to warrant one; although he was the only superstar on this team that lead his team to a title. Maybe there is a little bump for the title I guess.
 
magnifier661 said:
I understand, but many argue that those players shouldn't have received retired numbers. Even Walton didn't play long enough to warrant one; although he was the only superstar on this team that lead his team to a title. Maybe there is a little bump for the title I guess.
Click to expand...

If Dave Twardzik got his number retired, maybe Roy should as well. I'm not sure about it, though, and the only reason I consider it is because of Portland's history of retiring numbers. I doubt many people outside of Portland have heard of Dave Twardzik as a player, he's better known as a front office type; but Roy was well-known even outside of NBA circles. Twardzik retired from injuries after the 1980 season after playing only 4 years; Roy has him beat on years of playing.

I'm 50/50 on retiring #7, but I have no issue with Williams wearing #7.
 
Very impressive how Olshey has made lemonade from lemons in such a short time. So nice to know Mr. Allen has hired the right guy to run things. I am so happy to have a real bench again!
 
PapaG said:
If Dave Twardzik got his number retired, maybe Roy should as well. I'm not sure about it, though, and the only reason I consider it is because of Portland's history of retiring numbers. I doubt many people outside of Portland have heard of Dave Twardzik as a player, he's better known as a front office type; but Roy was well-known even outside of NBA circles. Twardzik retired from injuries after the 1980 season after playing only 4 years; Roy has him beat on years of playing.

I'm 50/50 on it, but I have no issue with Williams wearing #7.
Click to expand...

There was different ownership back then though.
 
Draco said:
The Rockets have the same damn room exception as us THEY COULD HAVE SIGNED HIM YESTERDAY TO AN IDENTICAL CONTRACT.
Click to expand...
What about DET? Could they have signed Mo? If not, I'm getting my hopes up for...DRUMMOND! ;)
 
magnifier661 said:
Even Walton didn't play long enough to warrant one; although he was the only superstar on this team that lead his team to a title. Maybe there is a little bump for the title I guess.
Click to expand...
You "guess"?? Good grief, Walton is the one former Blazer who deserves a retired number without a doubt. Without Walton there is no championship banner up in the rafters.
 
Shooter said:
You "guess"?? Good grief, Walton is the one former Blazer who deserves a retired number without a doubt. Without Walton there is no championship banner up in the rafters.
Click to expand...

If you think you should retire numbers for players that play less than 4 years and ditch your team, filing lawsuits, complaining publicly and being a total fuckhead; then yeah man he definitely deserves it.
 
magnifier661 said:
If you think you should retire numbers for players that play less than 4 years and ditch your team, filing lawsuits, complaining publicly and being a total fuckhead; then yeah man he definitely deserves it.
Click to expand...

You know Mags, sometimes you have to take the good and take the bad.

You take 'em both, and there you have...
 
Boob-No-More said:
When the Mavs won it all, Jason Kidd was 37 years old and not nearly the player he once was. He averaged 8.2 AST/g and had a AST% of 35.4 during the regular season. Those number dipped slightly to 7.3 AST/game and 32.7 AST% during the playoffs. Last season, Mo Williams, playing with far less talented teammates posted almost identical AST numbers (7.2 AST/game, AST% = 33.2) to what Kidd posted during the 2010-11 playoffs.
Click to expand...

Do you think that shows that they were equally talented passers?

The key to Dallas winning it all wasn't Jason Kidd's passing, it was the fact that the Mavs had some really great shooters. Dirk shot .460 from 3-point range during the playoffs. Jason Terry 3FG% = .442, DeShawn Stevenson 3FG% = .397, Peja Stojakovic 3FG% = .377, and even Jason Kidd 3FG% = .374. And again, Mo Williams regular season 2012-13 with 3FG% = .383 compares very favorably with Jason Kidd 2010-11 playoffs.
Click to expand...
So we've got no excuse for not winning it all?

I still don't get why you're so butt hurt about this signing.
Click to expand...
Sigh. Why does "not wetting myself with excitement" = "butthurt"? He's certainly an upgrade and will mean we probably win a few more games. Woo-woo. Happy?

This was such a good signing.
Click to expand...
It was good in that he's worth more than he's being paid. But I don't think it's a good thing in the medium or long term. He's a patch, like Crawford was a patch or Derek Anderson was. He's not young enough or in enough of a position of need to be really exciting. He duplicates Maynor, only he's shorter and older. Okay, that's unfair - he's a better shooter than Maynor.
I just don't understand how anyone could see it as a negative.
Click to expand...

There are positives and negatives with any signing. Somebody's going to lose PT, and if it's a player you want to see or who you think would benefit from more PT, then that's a negative. In terms of short term wins the positives easily outweigh the negatives. But if short term wins is not the be-all-and-end-all, then so what? Why is that so hard to understand?

If nothing else, it proves to LaMarcus Aldridge that this team is NOT in rebuilding mode.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Let's hope he sees it as a big enough needle-mover.
 
magnifier661 said:
I understand and honestly don't have a problem with Walton. The others are a joke.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "...the facts of life"

Agreed on the number retirements. We should have Walton, Drexler unquestionably, and Lucas and Porter would be questionable. Nobody else, IMO.
 
PtldPlatypus said:
I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for was "...the facts of life"

Agreed on the number retirements. We should have Walton, Drexler unquestionably, and Lucas and Porter would be questionable. Nobody else, IMO.
Click to expand...

PERFECT RESPONSE!
 
OT: I've long thought that the Blazers should have a "Ring of Honor" like the Cowboys. Retire less numbers (which I'm sure is their new policy) but still have an opportunity to honor lots of guys.

I wouldn't be in favor of retiring a player who never even got the Blazers to the Conference Finals. Truthfully, I'd Retire Sheeds number before Roys.

I think we already look dumb enough to others around the league for having so many retired numbers, I don't think we retire more any time soon.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Okay, let me explain. Here's what we're most lacking: a true floor general who looks to get players involved other than himself first, and a defender in the backcourt.
Here's what we already had: short scorers who are adequate passers, but not especially intuitive, and who are mediocre defenders at best.
Mo is the latter and not the former.

We need to decide what we're doing: are we really trying to compete? Then we need to shore up our deficiencies, especially defense.
Are we trying to tank? Then we need to play the young players so that they learn while we lose (the "play Kevin Durant at SG" method).

Mo Williams fits neither strategy. He fits the "let's just be good enough to crawl into the playoffs and fuck up our chance at a lottery pick" strategy. Meanwhile any minutes he plays will be taken away from CJ and Will Barton (and possibly Crabbe). Now, the latter might be a cause for cheering, but if he's on the roster, the only way he's going to improve is to get PT. Not only that, but he also takes away from Batum expanding his role and even from Aldridge getting the ball in a position to score, because, again, Mo is a shoot-first guy. Basically we didn't get the PG we need, we got ANOTHER tweener shooter. It reminds me of the Derek Anderson signing.
Click to expand...

just got back in and saw this.

wow. wtf?

Are you serious with this, or were you just throwing out "ideas" in the meeting room.

I don't even know where to begin, so I won't. Just say I disagree, don't see, think you are off base.

On top of it, we had a historically bad bench last season and a no defense PF, playing center. And you expected every single roster problem to be fixed in one off-season?

That is completely nuts.
 
It's a travesty that no Williams is wearing #7. Rots number Gould be retired. People turn so quickly... Roy brought rip city back, that should never be forgotten.
 
blazedanugz said:
It's a travesty that no Williams is wearing #7. Rots number Gould be retired. People turn so quickly... Roy brought rip city back, that should never be forgotten.
Click to expand...

Why is it a travesty? It doesn't mean we've turned on Roy. I still love Roy, but its time to understand that he didn't do enough to be a retired number. Yes, he helped bring Rip City back to Portland, but he never lead us out of the first round, nor stayed healthy enough to force Brass to retire his number.
 
Mo Williams @mowilliams
Just finished physical. Shower then headed to the press conference #ripcity
 
PapaG said:
If Dave Twardzik got his number retired, maybe Roy should as well. I'm not sure about it, though, and the only reason I consider it is because of Portland's history of retiring numbers. I doubt many people outside of Portland have heard of Dave Twardzik as a player, he's better known as a front office type; but Roy was well-known even outside of NBA circles. Twardzik retired from injuries after the 1980 season after playing only 4 years; Roy has him beat on years of playing.

I'm 50/50 on retiring #7, but I have no issue with Williams wearing #7.
Click to expand...
It's not like they retired all those numbers at once. Every time there was a stretch of sub-mediocre performance and the fans stopped coming in droves, they'd parade a member of That Team out in hopes of keeping the fan base connected.
 
magnifier661 said:
Why is it a travesty? It doesn't mean we've turned on Roy. I still love Roy, but its time to understand that he didn't do enough to be a retired number. Yes, he helped bring Rip City back to Portland, but he never lead us out of the first round, nor stayed healthy enough to force Brass to retire his number.
Click to expand...

repped
 
magnifier661 said:
Why is it a travesty? It doesn't mean we've turned on Roy. I still love Roy, but its time to understand that he didn't do enough to be a retired number. Yes, he helped bring Rip City back to Portland, but he never lead us out of the first round, nor stayed healthy enough to force Brass to retire his number.
Click to expand...
He did more than enough to earn a retired number. He surrendered his claim to that right when he tried to play for another team.
 
magnifier661 said:
Why is it a travesty? It doesn't mean we've turned on Roy. I still love Roy, but its time to understand that he didn't do enough to be a retired number. Yes, he helped bring Rip City back to Portland, but he never lead us out of the first round, nor stayed healthy enough to force Brass to retire his number.
Click to expand...

95% of the players hanging in the rafters never "led" us to anything. Most of them are role players... Roy a top 3 to 5 player to ever put the jersey on. I think that's what counts
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top