Jazz @ Blazers - GAME THREAD

[DaRizzle]

I hope the lakers get him after Phil is gone....but Byron Scott should be considered

 

[Boob-No-More]

I hope the lakers get him after Phil is gone.

I'll trade you Nate for Phil straight up as soon as the season is over (or today, if you're willing) - and I'll even throw in $100 million of Paul Allen's pocket change to cover Dr. Buss' tanning salon bill and hair plugs.

BMN

 

[maxiep]

And whose fault was the PG situation? And whose fault was it that Roy and Oden seemd to be at odds, getting in each other's way rather than playing off each other's strengths. Who was it that forced Roy to play out of position at small forward rather than bench Steve Blake in favor of Andre Miller? Who was it that rather than try to integrate Oden into the offensive game plan, told him, after he had just led the team in scoring in preseason, not worry about scoring and just focus in defense and rebounding?

It shouldn't have taken a month and a half of the regular season to FINALLY try a staring line-up of Brandon Roy at SG and Andre Miller at PG. That SHOULD have been the line-up starting the very first day of training camp. Andre Miller was not signed to back up Steve Blake. He was not signed to guard other teams SGs with Brandon Roy playing SF. Any kinks and adjustments should have been worked out in training camp and preseason - not starting in mid-December after we'd already lost multiple players to injury.

BNM

I agree. I think one of Nate's weaknesses is that he's too rigid.

 

[maxiep]

In your opinion. How do you know they are no-go's? Everyone has their price.

And I'd rather have Phil coaching the team and winning titles than watching Nate's mindless, self-defeating 4th quarter offense blow yet another sizable lead.

BNM

Adelman and Pops just signed new contracts. They're not available next year. And Sloan? He's been with the same team for 20+ years. What could we offer him he doesn't have?

I think Phil Jackson is gettable. However, I couldn't do it. It would be like my Redskins hiring Jimmy Johnson or my Red Sox hiring Joe Torre.

 

[hasoos]

Adelman and Pops just signed new contracts. They're not available next year. And Sloan? He's been with the same team for 20+ years. What could we offer him he doesn't have?

I think Phil Jackson is gettable. However, I couldn't do it. It would be like my Redskins hiring Jimmy Johnson or my Red Sox hiring Joe Torre.

Is that kind of like when we brought in Pippen, and he ended up kicking ass and being loved here? Yes he was part of our nemesis. But the facts are, those players are only loyal as far as the paycheck takes them. The same with coaches.

 

[craigehlo]

I hope the lakers get him after Phil is gone....but Byron Scott should be considered

I have a feeling he's waiting for Phil to step down and head over there. His excuses for turning down long-term extensions sound very insincere when it comes up.

He rode career years from Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis into a nice contract here. He's doing the same with Roy.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Adelman and Pops just signed new contracts. They're not available next year. And Sloan? He's been with the same team for 20+ years. What could we offer him he doesn't have?

How about $75 million over 5 years? That might get him to relocate. By the time you include luxury tax paments, that's a lot less than LaMarcus Aldridge will cost us over that same five year period. Seems like a good investment to me.

I think Phil Jackson is gettable. However, I couldn't do it. It would be like my Redskins hiring Jimmy Johnson or my Red Sox hiring Joe Torre.

Sorry, but your own personal vendetta against Phil Jackson is not enough of a reason not to hire the best man for the job.

So, how did you feel when the Blazers hired Mr. Sonic? What about when we hired Bob Whitsitt? At one time the Sonics were hated around here just about as much as the Lakers - especially in the mid-1990s when they were better and making it to the finals. Did you have the same aversion to hiring Nate as you do to hiring Phil?

Its funny, but I'd LOVE to hire Phil. I think he's the best man for the job and the coach most likely to take this team to the next level. But, it would also feel great to screw the Lakers out of their coach. It's a single move that would make the Blazers stronger and the Lakers weaker. I'm all for it.

BNM

 

[maxiep]

Is that kind of like when we brought in Pippen, and he ended up kicking ass and being loved here? Yes he was part of our nemesis. But the facts are, those players are only loyal as far as the paycheck takes them. The same with coaches.

That's not bringing in Pippen; that's bringing in K*be. BIG difference.

 

[maxiep]

How about $75 million over 5 years? That might get him to relocate. By the time you include luxury tax paments, that's a lot less than LaMarcus Aldridge will cost us over that same five year period. Seems like a good investment to me.

Who knows? All I'm saying is it's not like no one else ever offered Jerry Sloan another job, but he's stayed in SLC.

Sorry, but your own personal vendetta against Phil Jackson is not enough of a reason not to hire the best man for the job.

What you stand against says as much about you as what you stand for.

So, how did you feel when the Blazers hired Mr. Sonic? What about when we hired Bob Whitsitt? At one time the Sonics were hated around here just about as much as the Lakers - especially in the mid-1990s when they were better and making it to the finals. Did you have the same aversion to hiring Nate as you do to hiring Phil?

Not as much with Nate, but I still hated him. I'm still not thrilled with someone so closely idenfied with another franchise as our coach. I wanted Adelman. As for Whitsitt, I always hated that fucker. He destroyed everything good about this franchise. When he arrived, we were a model for how franchises were supposed to be run; when he left we were a national joke.

Its funny, but I'd LOVE to hire Phil. I think he's the best man for the job and the coach most likely to take this team to the next level. But, it would also feel great to screw the Lakers out of their coach. It's a single move that would make the Blazers stronger and the Lakers weaker. I'm all for it.

BNM

You and I will have to agree to disagree.

 

[OddEnormous]

How cute. When did I defend Nate?

How cute?

um.... ok.

Anyway,

Agreed. Played some great stuff early in the season when we had everyone healthy.

We didn't start playing well until NM ran out of choices.

We would have sorted the chemistry issues by now. This team hasn't had an opportunity to define roles all season.

Oh of course.

Followed by (This ones even better by you

That's right, because everything would have remained static. Do you remember the 76-77 season? I do. Shitloads of chemistry problems at the beginning of the season. They worked themselves out pretty well, though.

See, you just make all sorts of shit up.

I said no such thing. Sorry Fella, you're the only who knows the Blazers fortunes in the world that doesn't exist.

So, you're under the impression that nothing would have changed? That increased time playing together wouldn't have resulted in improved chemistry and team play? That's an interesting proposition.

At this point I had never said that. You were just making shit up. Seems to be a habit with you.

Is it? I find it interesting that you know what's happened in some alternate universe.

I do not have to defend something I never said.

For the second time, unlike you I do not make up fake results for a world that doesn't exist.

I only judge what I see in this realm.

So, you stand by your contention that if we had been healthy all season we wouldn't have figured out our chemistry issues? It seems to me that position belongs in an alternate universe as well. I guess you only like your alternate dimensions; the other ones to you are

See? Just making shit up. Still have not said anything about Bizzaro world.

For the 3rd time I made no such claim.

It is only you that claimed to know what would happen on Earth v 2.0.

Nice try, but you embraced that point of view by refuting mine. Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. In this case, taking a negative position is the same as taking the opposite position.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT The only Idea I'm refuting is that you can use "Yeah but we woulda" as evidence.

I do not argue what if's. Only what's actually going on.


Don't worry though I'm filled with confidence now that everything worked out OK on Planet Sector 7R and that the 1976 team had chemistry problems as well.

FULL STEAM AHEAD RONALD!!!!!!

 

[Boob-No-More]

Who knows? All I'm saying is it's not like no one else ever offered Jerry Sloan another job, but he's stayed in SLC.

And no one has ever offered him that kind of money to leave.

What you stand against says as much about you as what you stand for.

Other than win titles wherever he has gone, what exactly has Phil Jackson ever done that is so morally reprehensible that requires you to take a stand against hiring him as a Blazers coach. From what I've seen he brings out the best in his player/teams and does what it takes to win champsionships. I haven't heard of any human sacrifies or other vile acts, just winning ring after ring after ring for his employers be they the Lakers or the Bulls.

Is it Phil you object to, or the fact that he's led the Lakers to multiple titles that causes you to object to the Blazers hiring him? If we had hired him after he left the Bulls, would you have objected as strongly to his hiring, or is this just a Laker thing?

You say you want a good coach and agree that Phil is, in your opinion, one that is clearly better than Nate, yet you object to his hire. If he would make our team better and increase their odds of winning a championship (while at the same time hurting the hated Lakers), I don't understand your objections.

BNM

 

[maxiep]

How cute?

um.... ok.

Anyway,









Followed by (This ones even better by you



See, you just make all sorts of shit up.





At this point I had never said that. You were just making shit up. Seems to be a habit with you.







See? Just making shit up. Still have not said anything about Bizzaro world.






BZZZZZZZZZZZZZT The only Idea I'm refuting is that you can use "Yeah but we woulda" as evidence.

I do not argue what if's. Only what's actually going on.


Don't worry though I'm filled with confidence now that everything worked out OK on Planet Sector 7R and that the 1976 team had chemistry problems as well.

FULL STEAM AHEAD RONALD!!!!!!

Did you eat paint chips as a child? I stated that we would have figured out our chemistry problems by now if everyone had been healthy. You disagreed. By disagreeing, you're stating that we wouldn't have done so.

So, you're either stupid or obtuse. Which one?

 

[maxiep]

And no one has ever offered him that kind of money to leave.

Another SPAM acolyte. What do you believe the likelihood PA offers him that kind of coin?

Other than win titles wherever he has gone, what exactly has Phil Jackson ever done that is so morally reprehensible that requires you to take a stand against hiring him as a Blazers coach. From what I've seen he brings out the best in his player/teams and does what it takes to win champsionships. I haven't heard of any human sacrifies or other vile acts, just winning ring after ring after ring for his employers be they the Lakers or the Bulls.

Is it Phil you object to, or the fact that he's led the Lakers to multiple titles that causes you to object to the Blazers hiring him? If we had hired him after he left the Bulls, would you have objected as strongly to his hiring, or is this just a Laker thing?

You say you want a good coach and agree that Phil is, in your opinion, one that is clearly better than Nate, yet you object to his hire. If he would make our team better and increase their odds of winning a championship (while at the same time hurting the hated Lakers), I don't understand your objections.

BNM

I believe teams are more than about the laundry. It's one of the reasons I hated Whitsitt. He destroyed the idea of what it meant to be a Blazer. You go ahead and cheer for a mercenary; I'll never want to see Phil Jackson on our sideline. How you win is as important as winning.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Another SPAM acolyte. What do you believe the likelihood PA offers him that kind of coin?

Paul Allen is a sick man (and I wish him absolutely the best and hope he beats this disease, makes a full recovery and lives to be 101), He desparately wants to win an NBA title, still has buttloads of money and no direct heirs to his vast fortune. I could see him offereing the right coach, Sloan, Jackson, etc. 2x-3x what they are currently making to come here and help him get the one thing he's been after since he bought this team.

How many billions has he invested in this team, the players, the arena, luxury taxes, etc, since he bought the team? I can't see him pinching his pennies if he thinks the right coach is a major road block standing between him and his coveted champsonship. A title would make Paul Allen a very happy man. I think he deserves that happiness and would love to see him get it. As much as I want a championship for my own satisfaction, I want it even more for Paul Allen. He really and truly deserves it. In the end, $75 million (or whatever) is a drop in the bucket to him. His happiness and an NBA title is worth much more.

I believe teams are more than about the laundry. It's one of the reasons I hated Whitsitt. He destroyed the idea of what it meant to be a Blazer. You go ahead and cheer for a mercenary; I'll never want to see Phil Jackson on our sideline. How you win is as important as winning.

My own distaste for Bob Whitsitt was the inspiration for my original screen name at ESPN - TraderBoob. I despised what he did to our team. The difference is Whitsitt turned us into a laughing stock. I believe Phil would turn us into champions.

Are the Lakers a laughing stock? Are they the butt of jokes and the constant targets of vitriol from the local and national media? Were the Bulls under Jackson any of those things? Not to my knowledge.

So, I agree with your stance on Whitsitt, but I fail to see the connection between Phil Jackson and Bob Whitsitt. One destoyed the image of a proud franchise, the other has led two different francises to a total of 10 NBA titles.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

P.S. I don't get the mercenary comment. Isn't any coach who comes here paid to win? How would Phil Jackson be any more of a mercenary than Nate, or any other coach. They are all hired guns, brought in and paid handsomely for one thing - to win. And if they don't, they are sent packing to sell their services elsewhere.

BNM

 

[OddEnormous]

You disagreed.

Link?

 

[RoyToy]

[video=youtube;x7pVPLTJshU]

Is there another HC in Blazers history that has beaten the Lakers 9 straight times?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Is there another HC in Blazers history that has beaten the Lakers 9 straight times?

I don't know and I guess I don't really care.

 

[OddEnormous]

Is there another HC in Blazers history that has beaten the Lakers 9 straight times?

(at home)

I don't know is there?


Considering none of us know, I would make the point that nobody cares.

 

[RoyToy]

Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[maxiep]

Link?

http://www.sportstwo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2267016&postcount=628

 

[OddEnormous]

http://www.sportstwo.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2267016&postcount=628

That's not disagreeing. It's making fun of your "super powers."

HTH

 

[maxiep]

That's not disagreeing. It's making fun of your "super powers."

HTH

So, do you agree or disagree? And it wasn't "super powers", it was common sense. The more players play together, the more comfortable they become with one another. But you keep on trying to be evasive. You're an amusing chew toy.

 

[OddEnormous]

So, do you agree or disagree?

I don't know if it would have gotten better or not. I can't see into distant lands as you do.

I just know a team that played in Portland in 1976 did, so, I'll assume that Portland will go on to the championship this year on Planet No Injury.

YES!!!!!!!

You're an amusing chew toy.

And you're the dog who continues to believe he's getting the best of said chew toy.

Bravo, Lassie!

Go get it girl!

 

[LittleAlex]

I hope the lakers get him after Phil is gone....but Byron Scott should be considered

If you get Nate it will be goodbye Showtime Lakers and hello Slowtime Lakers.



Frankly I hope you get him as well.

 

[mgb]

Adelman and Pops just signed new contracts. They're not available next year. And Sloan? He's been with the same team for 20+ years. What could we offer him he doesn't have?

I think Phil Jackson is gettable. However, I couldn't do it. It would be like my Redskins hiring Jimmy Johnson or my Red Sox hiring Joe Torre.

Or my Cowboys hiring Parcells.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

If you get Nate it will be goodbye Showtime Lakers and hello Slowtime Lakers.



Frankly I hope you get him as well.

I think the Blazers propensity to run has more to do with Roy than Nate.

 

[hasoos]

I blame it on Nate, but I don't think he honestly knows he is causing the problem. Here is what I see the problem as. Nate feels every play he has to have his input, and or call plays. Because of Nate trying to be in every players back pocket, they stop and think instead of just reacting. When players are trying to run a fast break, or deciding to run one, they can't be looking over to their coach for approval. He just needs to let them go.

I think when Monty was in charge, the disconnect between Nate and the players, actually let them have the freedom they needed to play. The facts are, he couldn't relay messages in fast, so the players just relaxed and played ball.

From watching, I also don't think Monty was in their grills as much.