Webster's Potential?

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I think he's a better defender, passer and has improved the scope of his game.

His FG% has gone up, his PER his last season is higher I guess if you look at that. 3rd year out of the league, averaging 11 points per game isn't too bad for a project coming out of high school.

 

[Minstrel]

his PER his last season is higher I guess if you look at that.

And it fell by a similar amount in his second year. Overall, a range of 2 PER isn't really much change, considering that his third year PER and rookie year PER were about identical.

3rd year out of the league, averaging 11 points per game isn't too bad for a project coming out of high school.

When that's all he does, it's not very promising. He doesn't create the shots that net those 11 points per game, he's basically a spot-up shooter. A guy who scores 11 points from shooting off kick-outs by other players and does very little else is not terribly valuable.

We'll have to disagree on his passing and defense being significantly improved.

Hopefully he has a big break-out ahead, but I'd be more optimistic that that was coming if he were showing some significant gains in his production since his rookie season.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Isn't that basically what Rudy has done last year? Sure, he had a little more variety but most of his game was shooting 3-point kick-outs by other players.

Webster has always had this deer in the headlights kind of game, his play has been erratic at best but I think its way too early to write him off as a lost cause or someone who can't improve.

 

[Minstrel]

Isn't that basically what Rudy has done last year? Sure, he had a little more variety but most of his game was shooting 3-point kick-outs by other players.

To some extent, yes. But Rudy was also more of a play-maker, better able to create shots for himself and others. In addition, Rudy was a more efficient scorer. Some of that is that he knocked down those shots more often than Webster does, part of it is that Rudy draws more free throws.

Webster has always had this deer in the headlights kind of game, his play has been erratic at best but I think its way too early to write him off as a lost cause or someone who can't improve.

I wouldn't say he's a lost cause or that he can't improve. I just don't think he has improved much yet, which is a cause for concern about his future. I'd love to see him have a big break-out season. At his age, it's not impossible.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I think he's a better defender, passer and has improved the scope of his game.

His FG% has gone up, his PER his last season is higher I guess if you look at that. 3rd year out of the league, averaging 11 points per game isn't too bad for a project coming out of high school.

Given that he contributes nothing else, yes that is pretty bad.

Given that he is the guy the Blazers wanted over Paul and Williams, it is hideous.

Giving him a contract extension was one of the more baffling moves KP has made. If that long-term deal causes Nate to feel obligated to play Webster over Batum....I may resort to violence!

 

[anonymous gambler]

Given that he contributes nothing else, yes that is pretty bad.

Given that he is the guy the Blazers wanted over Paul and Williams, it is hideous.

Giving him a contract extension was one of the more baffling moves KP has made. If that long-term deal causes Nate to feel obligated to play Webster over Batum....I may resort to violence!

At 4 million a year, it's bafffling?

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Given that he contributes nothing else, yes that is pretty bad.

Given that he is the guy the Blazers wanted over Paul and Williams, it is hideous.

Giving him a contract extension was one of the more baffling moves KP has made. If that long-term deal causes Nate to feel obligated to play Webster over Batum....I may resort to violence!

His contract is really cheap. also, if we didn't re-extend him at that bargain price we'd have a caphold on his salary.

He plays solid D. He is improving his handles and hopefully his shot selection.

 

[oldmangrouch]

At 4 million a year, it's bafffling?

It starts at 4, and grows to around 6. More to the point, who does he take his playing time from?

 

[Wheels]

I think that if given the chance and is here next year.. a lot of people in this thread will look very silly IMO.

 

[mook]

Sure, there is Finley or Glenn Rice potential. But lots of guys in the NBA have had that kind of updside at that age. In fact, most swing men in the rotation at that age should, or the team should replace the guy with somebody who does.

Among twos and threes at around his age getting 15+ mpg in the NBA, I have not seen much to make me think he is more likely than the rest to be much more than a bench role player, or a Steve Blake-kind of starter (does not win or lose many games).

A big disappointment if you still think of him as a #6 draft pick we selected instead of Chris Paul, or hoping he cements our SF starting role for a decade. But a decent value given his age (he could blow up) and contract size. Provided he is willing to play a likely bench role without creating a stink.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Sure, there is Finley or Glenn Rice potential. But lots of guys in the NBA have had that kind of updside at that age. In fact, most swing men in the rotation at that age should, or the team should replace the guy with somebody who does.

Among twos and threes at around his age getting 15+ mpg in the NBA, I have not seen much to make me think he is more likely than the rest to be much more than a bench role player, or a Steve Blake-kind of starter (does not win or lose many games).

A big disappointment if you still think of him as a #6 draft pick we selected instead of Chris Paul, or hoping he cements our SF starting role for a decade. But a decent value given his age (he could blow up) and contract size. Provided he is willing to play a likely bench role without creating a stink.

Don't forget Deron Williams, Raymond Felton, Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger and David Lee

 

[mook]

Don't forget Deron Williams, Raymond Felton, Andrew Bynum, Danny Granger and David Lee

ugh. I'd really rather.

Man, Nash really had to pick through the diamonds to find that lump of coal.

 

[e_blazer]

Geez, the level of cynicism by some of you guys is incredible to me. Webster's on a cheap contract and he'll either prove to be a wise investment by KP or he'll be moved after he shows whether he's going to up his game. There's always going to be a place in the league for a guy like him who can shoot from distance. Whether he can get over the mental limitations he imposes on himself or not remains to be seen. As long as he wears a Blazers uniform, I'm going to be rooting for him to live up to his potential. Let what he brings next season determine where, and how much, he plays.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Geez, the level of cynicism by some of you guys is incredible to me. Webster's on a cheap contract and he'll either prove to be a wise investment by KP or he'll be moved after he shows whether he's going to up his game. There's always going to be a place in the league for a guy like him who can shoot from distance. Whether he can get over the mental limitations he imposes on himself or not remains to be seen. As long as he wears a Blazers uniform, I'm going to be rooting for him to live up to his potential. Let what he brings next season determine where, and how much, he plays.

Webster's best shooting year from deep as a pro was .388. That would have landed him squarely in the 58th spot for qualified players this season.

Blake .427

Rudy .399

Roy .377

Outlaw .377

Batum .369


Is Webster's skill set really that in demand?

Hell, Channing Frye shot .333 this season.

And in Webster's first two years in the league his 3pt% was worse than Batum's this season.


He is on a cheap contract though.

 

[oldmangrouch]

I guess absence really does make the heart grow fonder.

If Webster had been our starting 3 this season, people would be as upset with him as they are at Blake....probably moreso, as Webster is even more one dimensional. On top of that, we wouldn't have discovered what a gem we have in Batum.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Didn't he shoot a lot more 3's than most of those players though?

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I guess absence really does make the heart grow fonder.

If Webster had been our starting 3 this season, people would be as upset with him as they are at Blake....probably moreso, as Webster is even more one dimensional. On top of that, we wouldn't have discovered what a gem we have in Batum.

or, we would have seen improvement from him.

 

[oldmangrouch]

ugh. I'd really rather.

Man, Nash really had to pick through the diamonds to find that lump of coal.

Really makes you wonder, doesn't it. Too bad Yega is no longer around - this is a conspiracy theory I would really like to unleash him on. It seems almost impossible to believe that anyone honestly thought Webster was a better player than *all* of those guys. He might have mis-evaluated 1 or even 2.....but all???

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

They wanted Webster + Jack. That's why the pick was at 6.

 

[e_blazer]

I guess absence really does make the heart grow fonder.

If Webster had been our starting 3 this season, people would be as upset with him as they are at Blake....probably moreso, as Webster is even more one dimensional. On top of that, we wouldn't have discovered what a gem we have in Batum.

The way people react around here, Batum's one more poor scoring year away from many of you demanding that he be dumped as a one-dimensional defensive player.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Didn't he shoot a lot more 3's than most of those players though?

I had to check because I didn't know

Webster 317


Blake 328
Rudy 398
Travis 236
Roy 220
Batum 168

So I guess the answer is no. He shot more than Travis and Roy, but not "a lot" more...well almost 100 more than Roy I guess is a lot. He shot a lot more than Batum though. Both Blake and Rudy shot more than him, and Rudy maybe a lot more.

I just don't see where his skill set is so special I guess. His shot sure is pretty though. I am also not saying he is a bad shooter by any means. But all the people we have that shoot well play his possition, and those players really aren't that much different, and in some cases they are better.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I think most of it is banking on him growing into a more complete player, not so one-dimensional. unfortuantely we didn't get to see that, but REPORTS were that his dribbles improved greatly which will translate to him putting the ball on the floor.

 

[Mediocre Man]

They wanted Webster + Jack. That's why the pick was at 6.

Instead of Paul or Williams and David Lee.....eek.


We traded out of 3 because we had Telfair. That was the thought at the time. If I remember correctly there have been stories about KP screaming to anyone that would listen that we should take Paul, but was over ruled by PatterNash. I believe that is the reason he is GM today.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I think most of it is banking on him growing into a more complete player, not so one-dimensional. unfortuantely we didn't get to see that, but REPORTS were that his dribbles improved greatly which will translate to him putting the ball on the floor.

I am in the Webster is a far more complete player than Travis will ever be court by the way.

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Instead of Paul or Williams and David Lee.....eek.


We traded out of 3 because we had Telfair. That was the thought at the time. If I remember correctly there have been stories about KP screaming to anyone that would listen that we should take Paul, but was over ruled by PatterNash. I believe that is the reason he is GM today.

I think those stories were false as I remember the celebration in the "war room" when they got the Jack trade done. I believe that was more revisionist history than anything...but that is a point to be debated.

 

[andalusian]

I wonder what makes Webster's contract so "cheap" - the average NBA salary is $5.3m - so he starts right there and will go up from there - but a USA Today article from last year showed that the average SF salary in the league is $3.7m - so Webster - who is a below-average SF - especially for a starter - will be paid more than that. I am certain they really thought he would have a breakout year or had a range for a specific trade target they coveted - but until proven otherwise - his salary does not seem "cheap".

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

I am in the Webster is a far more complete player than Travis will ever be court by the way.

Yes. I think his ceiling as a smarter player that can provide a scoring threat is there. I think he'll eventually be a pretty stable type of player that can draw out the d.

 

[adrenalize74]

I think most of it is banking on him growing into a more complete player, not so one-dimensional. unfortuantely we didn't get to see that, but REPORTS were that his dribbles improved greatly which will translate to him putting the ball on the floor.

Keep in mind how Nate likes to hold back the young guys, generally. You saw it from Rudy this year, he never used his ability to create and/or to slash....he was one-dimensional.

Outlaw only just this year was given more of a green light.....and not too impressed with how that went. If Webster proves this off season he has matured (mentally), proves to more coachable (big prob with his development the first 2 seasons) and comes out like he almost did this year (based on reports from training camp and pre-season)....Nate should give him the green light and we might finally get so see a more dynamic Webster. I think he has been fairly limited in the past and relageated to a 3 point specialist primarly because of Nate holding the reigns.

Aside from Oden, I think Martell has the most room for improvement on the Blazers roster. And I do think he is prob the most athletic player on the team.....he has shown glimpses of it in the past that left me wondering "where did that come from and why dont we see more of it??".

 

[BTOWN_HUSTLA]

Yes. Nate has a really short leash for some, too much of a leash for others.

 

[mook]

I wonder what makes Webster's contract so "cheap" - the average NBA salary is $5.3m - so he starts right there and will go up from there - but a USA Today article from last year showed that the average SF salary in the league is $3.7m - so Webster - who is a below-average SF - especially for a starter - will be paid more than that. I am certain they really thought he would have a breakout year or had a range for a specific trade target they coveted - but until proven otherwise - his salary does not seem "cheap".

Obviously, I'm not a huge supporter of Webster, but his value also includes upside. The majority of starting SF's are a lot older and near their peak. Webster at least has the potential of becoming average or above average. That makes him worth paying more.

Also, I assume there are some SF's still on their rookie contracts, which further drag down the average salary. The rookie contracts are an artificial barrier to paying people their true value. Danny Granger is not being paid what he's worth if he were free to negotiate a contract.

But yeah, you've got a pretty good point. Webster isn't a cut-rate bargain. Particularly if you factor in that Paul Allen paid him a year of that salary to not even suit up.