"KP testing the market on Miller's worth?"

[LittleAlex]

you mean like when the entire board was screaming to draft blair?

The ONLY thing that makes KP missing so badly on this pick was the fact that 28 other teams fucked up to.

It doesn't make it ok but misery loves company.

I like Donte and all, but Blair is just the type of back up 4 Portland needed.

Besides Portland could have had both.

 

[LittleAlex]

Sometimes, though, the message board is right (even with its limited information) and management is wrong.

Draft Chris Paul over Webster.
Start Aldridge over Magloire.
Start Pippen at PG (and Damon at the far end of the bench).
Use Zach at PF and Sheed at C.
Don't pay big money to Theo Ratliff.
Zach and Rahim can't co-exist.
Portland can't "get out and run" with Nate as coach.
Take a flyer on drafting DeJuan Blair.

These were all pretty popular themes on the board that ran counter to what management seemed to think (or at least say publicly). But time proved us right.

Now you can also find a bunch of examples where the fans here are wrong (Draft the Stache!). I'm not saying we're always right.

But just given these examples off the top of my head, it's pretty clear to me that it's not arrogant to second-guess management even with our limited knowledge. They see a lot of things we don't, but I think sometimes we see some things they don't too.

That movement was insane.

I remember after watching Morison quit and cry when the Zags lost to Duke in the tournament thinking to myself the dude was going to be a bust.

I was really hoping the team would get either Brandon or LMA in the draft. I damn near shit myself when they got both guys.

I had no clue how good those dudes would turn out. I just had a feeling about them.

Almost exactly the opposite of the feeling I get when I think about this years first round draft pick, Victor Claver. I hope I am wrong, but that dude has wasted pick written all over him.

 

[yakbladder]

Sometimes, though, the message board is right (even with its limited information) and management is wrong.

Sometimes, yes, but the I think what e_blazer is saying is that the way the message is delivered is sometimes downright arrogant. Not necessarily the message itself.

It's not "I think we should play person X and go with lineup A."

It's "F'n Nate and F'n KP are so stupid. I knew from before he was even born that person X was made for a fast-break team. Damnt these people are stupid. We're just going to lose every single game here on out because they refuse to go use person X in lineup A." followed by the ever-amusing instance as soon as ONE single play in a game bears them out "I knew I was right! Those idiots! Fire Nate! Fire KP! Paul Allen better do as I say or the team will go down in flames! I was right!"

...or something of that likeness. You get the drift. It's just called a little bit of general respect. But I guess that's hard to muster for arm-chair coaches. It's hard to have a discussion when people are shouting their unwavering opinions in your face unwilling to budge an iota that they may be wrong and guaranteeing they know more than at least the last two sets of Blazers mgmt.

But just given these examples off the top of my head, it's pretty clear to me that it's not arrogant to second-guess management even with our limited knowledge.

I could make an argument here that you're just cherry picking. Let's take all the supposed "solid conclusions" that are drawn by Blazer board posters over the last..let's say ten years..and match them up against reality and see what the results are. Realizing that with the width and breadth of stupid opinions here (mine sometimes included) you'll probably come up with a fairly long list of wrong "conclusions". Therefore, knowing the board to be wrong - and let's just pull a number out of thin air - say 80% of the time, wouldn't it be arrogant to present your solution as an absolute, obvious theory?

 

[mook]

STherefore, knowing the board to be wrong - and let's just pull a number out of thin air - say 80% of the time, wouldn't it be arrogant to present your solution as an absolute, obvious theory?

Well, I know I'm wrong only 76.2% of the time, so I feel entitled to say the Nate McMillan sucks dong.

Nate McMillan sucks dong.

 

[e_blazer]

It's "F'n Nate and F'n KP are so stupid. I knew from before he was even born that person X was made for a fast-break team. Damnt these people are stupid. We're just going to lose every single game here on out because they refuse to go use person X in lineup A." followed by the ever-amusing instance as soon as ONE single play in a game bears them out "I knew I was right! Those idiots! Fire Nate! Fire KP! Paul Allen better do as I say or the team will go down in flames! I was right!"

Thanks, Yak, you pretty much nailed it.

I'm going to have to hire you as my personal translator.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I dunno...shouldn't the Blazers test Miller's worth on the court before testing his worth on the market?

Absolutely ... Are they? Will they? Doesn't look like it to me.

Honestly, I don't understand this "It's not working out" idea. It hasn't really been tried yet. Maybe it won't work out. But if it's not even tried, I'd say it's the coach who "isn't working out."

Maybe I'm just resigned at this point (having already passed through the stages of 'disbelief', 'anger', 'bargaining', and 'grief') I don't see much evidence that A) KP is willing to abandon Nate or Nate's system, B) That Nate is willing to stop calling almost every play, and C) That Brandon's resistance to playing alongside him is going to soften.

I don't even really expect KP to get great value for him, but if he can get decent value (a good veteran wing defender, or a 'goodish' defensive minded point guard) by combining him with a few superfluous offensive minded guys then I'd at least accept it at this point. I just think there's too much inertia set against Andre at this point for this move to succeed.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I dunno...shouldn't the Blazers test Miller's worth on the court before testing his worth on the market?

Honestly, I don't understand this "It's not working out" idea. It hasn't really been tried yet. Maybe it won't work out. But if it's not even tried, I'd say it's the coach who "isn't working out."

Oh hush up child.

You young folks and your new-fangled notions about "common sense" and such like. Where do you get such ideas? I blame all those Muslim/Commies in the public schools.

 

[Natebishop3]

Okay. While I don't have any problems with people having strong opinions about what they think needs to be done to improve the team, I do think that there should be a bit more caution used in assuming that "board wisdom" exceeds the opinions of the paid professionals on the Blazers' management team. All any of us have to go on is what we see in the games...and truth be told, we don't often see anywhere near as much as the pros who spend hours reviewing and dissecting game video. We also don't see practices where various combinations of players are actually played in various roles so that real information is gained as to which players work best together. All in all, I'd say most of the things expressed here, including my own, are based on way too little information and way too much opinion. It's a message board, so you expect to see this type of thing, but a bit more humility and respect, IMO, would be a good thing.

You know what, most of the people on this forum have been watching basketball for a long time. A very long time. A very very long time. What, in your opinion, does or does not qualify them as an "expert"? What makes them any different from a Jason Quick or a Dwight Jaynes? I've been in the locker room. I've been to practice. It doesn't make these guys smarter. It gives them some insight, but it's not like it qualifies them as basketball geniuses.

We watch the games. We can call a spade a spade. The fact that Blake has started every game this season is absolutely ludicrous. Nate has deserved every bit of criticism he has received this season. Are we experts? Maybe not, but we're not stupid. As this whole Blake/Miller saga has dragged on, our voices have become louder and louder.

 

[yakbladder]

Well, I know I'm wrong only 76.2% of the time, so I feel entitled to say the Nate McMillan sucks dong.

Nate McMillan sucks dong.

If you were only wrong 76.2% of the time I'd write letters every month asking Paul Allen to hire you as GM.

KP is wrong 76.3% of the time.

 

[Natebishop3]

If you were only wrong 76.2% of the time I'd write letters every month asking Paul Allen to hire you as GM.

KP is wrong 76.3% of the time.

It's funny though, we don't see a lot of "In KP We Trust" anymore.

 

[yakbladder]

You know what, most of the people on this forum have been watching basketball for a long time. A very long time. A very very long time. What, in your opinion, does or does not qualify them as an "expert"? What makes them any different from a Jason Quick or a Dwight Jaynes? I've been in the locker room. I've been to practice. It doesn't make these guys smarter. It gives them some insight, but it's not like it qualifies them as basketball geniuses.

We watch the games. We can call a spade a spade. The fact that Blake has started every game this season is absolutely ludicrous. Nate has deserved every bit of criticism he has received this season. Are we experts? Maybe not, but we're not stupid. As this whole Blake/Miller saga has dragged on, our voices have become louder and louder.

So pretty much e_blazer just says "Hey, it's not the message, it's how the message is delivered." and you go on to rag on him because you apparently feel personally slighted...and then you compare yourself to Quick and Jaynes? Bwahahahahaha...bwaha...ha...Sorry..but that's probably the worst examples to use.

He's just saying (again, sorry for speaking for you e) that some people present their ideas as infallible and since you are neither the Pope or aware of 100% of the information that cannot be correct. But that doesn't seem to stop people from presenting those ideas as infallible.

Perhaps we should just all take papal names? I've always wondered about Pope Innocent..I'm curious why he chose that name...

 

[e_blazer]

You know what, most of the people on this forum have been watching basketball for a long time. A very long time. A very very long time. What, in your opinion, does or does not qualify them as an "expert"? What makes them any different from a Jason Quick or a Dwight Jaynes? I've been in the locker room. I've been to practice. It doesn't make these guys smarter. It gives them some insight, but it's not like it qualifies them as basketball geniuses.

Given that I've been watching the Blazers for going on 40 years now, I guess by your standards I must be ready to run the team.

If you'll go back and take a closer look at what I actually said in my post, Nate, you'll see that I never said anything about Quick, Jaynes or any other reporter. My peeve has to do with the supposition that just watching the games on TV equates to a better understanding of how to run the team than KP and Nate have.

We watch the games. We can call a spade a spade. The fact that Blake has started every game this season is absolutely ludicrous. Nate has deserved every bit of criticism he has received this season. Are we experts? Maybe not, but we're not stupid. As this whole Blake/Miller saga has dragged on, our voices have become louder and louder.

Loud voices don't alway equate to a correct assessment of situations. I've no problem with you or anybody else thinking that Blake doesn't deserve to start. Nate's had his reasons for sticking with him and that's his choice as coach. He liked the chemistry that Blake and Roy had last season. He thought Miller would fit with a running game for the second unit. Due to the fact that Steve's been in a real slump all season and injuries have taken a toll on some of our most atheletic players, that hasn't worked out too well. Apparently, based upon Quick's reports, he's now decided to go another direction and start Miller. Great. Do you really think that's going to fix everything that's a problem for this team? Think the second unit might have a bit of a problem without balanced scoring? There's a hell of a lot more involved than who starts the game.

 

[Fez Hammersticks]

This wont help our defense but he hasn't meshed well with Triano. A good half-court PG that can shoot, a rich man's Steve Blake.

Andre Miller for Jose Calderon, anyone?

 

[Natebishop3]

So pretty much e_blazer just says "Hey, it's not the message, it's how the message is delivered." and you go on to rag on him because you apparently feel personally slighted...and then you compare yourself to Quick and Jaynes? Bwahahahahaha...bwaha...ha...Sorry..but that's probably the worst examples to use.

He's just saying (again, sorry for speaking for you e) that some people present their ideas as infallible and since you are neither the Pope or aware of 100% of the information that cannot be correct. But that doesn't seem to stop people from presenting those ideas as infallible.

Perhaps we should just all take papal names? I've always wondered about Pope Innocent..I'm curious why he chose that name...

I didn't say I was personally slighted, and it's not directed entirely at E. I'm just tired of people using the "we are not professionals so we can't possibly know as much as them" argument. I think it is a slight on the knowledge of the people who post on this board. Our posters are not idiots. I would say the overall basketball IQ on this forum is pretty exceptional. Most of the time people aren't making posts that simply say "Blake shouldn't start because he sux". They are usually well thought out and have well supported arguments.

All I'm saying is, I've been around the "professionals" and they aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maurice Cheeks is a perfect example.

 

[e_blazer]

I didn't say I was personally slighted, and it's not directed entirely at E. I'm just tired of people using the "we are not professionals so we can't possibly know as much as them" argument. I think it is a slight on the knowledge of the people who post on this board. Our posters are not idiots. I would say the overall basketball IQ on this forum is pretty exceptional. Most of the time people aren't making posts that simply say "Blake shouldn't start because he sux". They are usually well thought out and have well supported arguments.

All I'm saying is, I've been around the "professionals" and they aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maurice Cheeks is a perfect example.

While the general basketball knowledge around here is pretty high for a basketball forum, do you really think that it matches up with guys who have played the game at that level and coached for a number of years? Beyond that, what's lacking around here is any inside knowledge of what goes on with the team. Watching games, reading articles on the team, and maybe getting to go to a practice or two can't equate to talking to the players one on one, having access to game film broken down by professional assistants analyzing every aspect of the game, having knowledge about players' health from team trainers and physicians, being directly involved in running and observing every practice session and game... etc.

None of this is to say that Nate and KP aren't above making making mistakes and don't have their weaknesses. There are some valid criticisms voiced here. All I'm saying is that absent the inside information that Nate and KP have, it seems to me that we shouldn't automatically jump to the conclusion that they're imbeciles when they don't follow the advice that we're so ready to offer around here. Perhaps, just maybe, they know a few things we don't.

 

[yakbladder]

I didn't say I was personally slighted, and it's not directed entirely at E. I'm just tired of people using the "we are not professionals so we can't possibly know as much as them" argument. I think it is a slight on the knowledge of the people who post on this board. Our posters are not idiots. I would say the overall basketball IQ on this forum is pretty exceptional. Most of the time people aren't making posts that simply say "Blake shouldn't start because he sux". They are usually well thought out and have well supported arguments.

All I'm saying is, I've been around the "professionals" and they aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maurice Cheeks is a perfect example.

And again, not to belabor the point but I don't think that is entirely his point. I think it's more of a message delivery point vs the message being delivered. And modifying that message delivery based upon the knowledge that as an individual none of us are really as smart as we'd like to think (about anything) other, than of course, mook who is only wrong approximately 72% of the time.

 

[PapaG]

I didn't say I was personally slighted, and it's not directed entirely at E. I'm just tired of people using the "we are not professionals so we can't possibly know as much as them" argument. I think it is a slight on the knowledge of the people who post on this board. Our posters are not idiots. I would say the overall basketball IQ on this forum is pretty exceptional. Most of the time people aren't making posts that simply say "Blake shouldn't start because he sux". They are usually well thought out and have well supported arguments.

All I'm saying is, I've been around the "professionals" and they aren't what they're cracked up to be. Maurice Cheeks is a perfect example.

I have no problem stating that there isn't a single poster on this board, or on the internet for that matter, that knows as much about the team as Nate, KP, or the players. Perhaps I'm reading eblazer's initial post incorrectly, but I got out of it that disagreeing with some people's opinions here elicits outright mocking and derision by the people I not-as-eloquently term the "experts". Congrats to you for blogging about the team. Congrats to you for posting about how stupid you think Outlaw and Przy are in terms of intelligence. Congrats to you for posting that you want the team to fail so you can be "right" about McMillan.

I don't see how any of that makes your opinions any more valid than a person who disagrees with you. And Nate, I'm personally calling you out because you replied to eblazer's post, which tells me you feel he was speaking to you (regardless of if he was or was not). These boards used to be about an exchange of ideas. Now, it's about mocking posters who you (generic, not you specifically) don't agree with for daring to have a differing opinion.

At times, I wonder if some posters here enjoy even a second of a game, or if they are rooting for "their guys" to succeed and for the BLANKYS of the team to fail.

 

[Natebishop3]

I have no problem stating that there isn't a single poster on this board, or on the internet for that matter, that knows as much about the team as Nate, KP, or the players. Perhaps I'm reading eblazer's initial post incorrectly, but I got out of it that disagreeing with some people's opinions here elicits outright mocking and derision by the people I not-as-eloquently term the "experts". Congrats to you for blogging about the team. Congrats to you for posting about how stupid you think Outlaw and Przy are in terms of intelligence. Congrats to you for posting that you want the team to fail so you can be "right" about McMillan.

I don't see how any of that makes your opinions any more valid than a person who disagrees with you. And Nate, I'm personally calling you out because you replied to eblazer's post, which tells me you feel he was speaking to you (regardless of if he was or was not). These boards used to be about an exchange of ideas. Now, it's about mocking posters who you (generic, not you specifically) don't agree with for daring to have a differing opinion.

At times, I wonder if some posters here enjoy even a second of a game, or if they are rooting for "their guys" to succeed and for the BLANKYS of the team to fail.

I would love for you to show me a single time that I have questioned Joel Przybilla's intelligence. Joel isn't a dumb guy. I have no idea where you got that.

You're right. I have said Outlaw is less than sharp. Spend more than ten minutes talking to the guy and you get back to me with your opinion.

Oh, and I didn't "blog" about the team. Thanks.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I have no problem stating that there isn't a single poster on this board, or on the internet for that matter, that knows as much about the team as Nate, KP, or the players. Perhaps I'm reading eblazer's initial post incorrectly, but I got out of it that disagreeing with some people's opinions here elicits outright mocking and derision by the people I not-as-eloquently term the "experts". Congrats to you for blogging about the team. Congrats to you for posting about how stupid you think Outlaw and Przy are in terms of intelligence. Congrats to you for posting that you want the team to fail so you can be "right" about McMillan.

I don't see how any of that makes your opinions any more valid than a person who disagrees with you. And Nate, I'm personally calling you out because you replied to eblazer's post, which tells me you feel he was speaking to you (regardless of if he was or was not). These boards used to be about an exchange of ideas. Now, it's about mocking posters who you (generic, not you specifically) don't agree with for daring to have a differing opinion.

At times, I wonder if some posters here enjoy even a second of a game, or if they are rooting for "their guys" to succeed and for the BLANKYS of the team to fail.

It is certainly easy to get that feeling around here, isn't it.

I have never been a "starting Miller is the saviour to this team or will save the season" . . . but if Miller starts tomorrow, I will be leading the cheers at the RG (thanks mgb) if Miller is leading the way.

To me, Blazers winning is far more improtant than anything that is said on this board.

 

[barfo]

Perhaps we should just all take papal names? I've always wondered about Pope Innocent..I'm curious why he chose that name...

Pope Saint Innocent I was pope from 401 to March 12 417.

He was, according to his biographer in the Liber Pontificalis, the son of a man called Innocens of Albano; but according to his contemporary Jerome, his father was Pope Anastasius I (399-401), whom he was called by the unanimous voice of the clergy and laity to succeed (he had been born before his father's entry to the clergy, let alone the papacy).

There were also Popes Innocent II through XIII. I think by the time XIII was released, the styling had gotten stale and the quality of assembly was poor, and the line was discontinued after that.

barfo

 

[mook]

Pope Saint Innocent I was pope from 401 to March 12 417.

He was, according to his biographer in the Liber Pontificalis, the son of a man called Innocens of Albano; but according to his contemporary Jerome, his father was Pope Anastasius I (399-401), whom he was called by the unanimous voice of the clergy and laity to succeed (he had been born before his father's entry to the clergy, let alone the papacy).

There were also Popes Innocent II through XIII. I think by the time XIII was released, the styling had gotten stale and the quality of assembly was poor, and the line was discontinued after that.

barfo

Indeed. The end of the Innocents.

 

[KingSpeed]

From Adrian Wojandsk;fsdkfjwe: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...F?slug=aw-tradebuzz120309&prov=yhoo&type=lgns



This pisses me off to no end. They haven't even tried ONE GAME with Miller starting at PG with Roy as his back court mate, and they're already trying to gauge his value in a trade? That too, in favor of Blake staying here?! WOW.

This is what I posted it an earlier thread and I believe it is what is going to happen:

I think the best option is to ship him away. Roy doesn't want to play with him and the PG position is really not an issue on our team (Blake and Bayless are perfectly serviceable next to Roy). We need another scorer. Someone who is going to make up for the loss of Outlaw, either to start in Webster's place or come off the bench. After December 15th, we should trade Miller for this guy. Someone who won't need the ball in his hands constantly to be effective. Let Roy handpick the guy. So much gets solved this way:

1) Blake can relax and know that the PG position is his. He doesn't have to look over his shoulder. He'll play better.

2) Bayless finally gets real minutes at backup PG. With Sergio being sent out, Bayless was ready to take on that role and then suddenly, we bring in Miller like a slap in the face to all of Bayless' hard work.

3) Brandon Roy is finally happy, can take charge of the team, and control the pace of the game, something that was considered one of his strengths from coaches and players around the league earlier in his career (y'know, back when he was winning Player of the Week awards?)

4) New player takes some scoring pressure off Roy when needed. Essentially, this new player is the new Travis Outlaw.

5) Finally, it begins to feel like "last year" again. And we get out of the first round this time because LMA & Roy are more experienced and Oden has improved. Plus, New Player delivers that extra punch of scoring that Travis failed to last spring.

And there. Everything's back to normal in Blazer land. No worries. Blake has shown that he can get the ball to Oden. In fact, it is Blake who has set up Oden for more wide open dunks than any other player on the team including Miller.

This would make me happy. Thoughts?

 

[KingSpeed]

Smoke and mirrors on who's part? It doesn't accomplish a thing on our side, other than further damage the chemistry of this team.

It accomplishes a lot (see above), especially the gain we will get from finally giving Bayless real minutes. Bayless will deliver. Trust me.

 

[KingSpeed]

Jamison or Butler (or Mike Miller).

Fuck. If we could get any of those for Miller, we would be a lock for the WCF. Like I said, this also results in better play from Roy, Blake, Bayless, and even Oden.

 

[Pontius]

So pretty much e_blazer just says "Hey, it's not the message, it's how the message is delivered." and you go on to rag on him because you apparently feel personally slighted...and then you compare yourself to Quick and Jaynes? Bwahahahahaha...bwaha...ha...Sorry..but that's probably the worst examples to use.

I love your hypocritical "decorum" in the telling others of what is respectful.


I too can laugh at your pretentious smugness. And no, I'm not trying to be respectful.

 

[KingSpeed]

Everybody who watches this team knows Aldridge starts slow and ends strong. He has done that every year through his career. Go back. Look at the numbers. Every year by end of year he is playing much better than the start. Including rebounding.

This is only his 4th year and he ended his 1st year in the doctor's office so basically you're only talking about two seasons.

 

[KingSpeed]

Send him to Miami and somehow get Chalmers in return

We don't need a PG. We already have the two boys that Roy wants to play with.

 

[KingSpeed]

I have given up on KP ever trading Blake or Outlaw.

It will never EVER happen. Ever.

 

[KingSpeed]

I think Battier would be perfect here, but I've said that before.

Amen.
ii
ii
ii
V

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

 

[yakbladder]

I love your hypocritical "decorum" in the telling others of what is respectful.


I too can laugh at your pretentious smugness. And no, I'm not trying to be respectful.

???

I don't know where you are getting the hypocritical part. I was trying to translate for another poster and provide my own input as I stated several times.

As for the line about Jaynes and Quick, I think it's funny, I'm not making fun of him. I think they ARE bad examples to use because they're paid (or in one case were paid) to stir the pot a little.

But really if it makes you feel that much better to make a personal insult in a post, go for it!