Fork

Which is it? Are we still downplaying Chris Paul's rookie season or are we moving on? You can't seem to make up your mind.

__________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935

If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by. -- Japanese proverb

It's_GO_Time

I agree with this. Last year was different because Paul was the consensus pick. This year the "experts" seem to be all over the map and there is no consensus #1, #2, #3 and #4.


Another thread asks who your top 4 was. I was going to answer till I realized my opinion is based on watching a handful of pac 10 games, some of the tourney and reading this board. Really what do I know about Aldridge, Gay or espescially the Euro dude. I don't have tons of faith with the Blazer scouts, but I trust them more that the so called experts on some of the internet sites referred to on this board.

My two cents is I hope the scouts place more emphsis on games played v. workouts. My simplistic thought (being an ex-player and ex-HS coach) is that you learn a lot more about a player watching them day in and day out in games v. a one day workout. But overall I think you got to trust the scouts for this draft year . . .

gatorpops

How many supporters of either player, Paul or Telfair, had as firm opinnion of them before they ever played in the NBA?
That is the platform from which all players are viewed before they are drafted.

Seems fruitless to argue later, disapointed maybe, but fruitless.

When Drexler was drafted I thought that he might very well be better than Jordan. Not many thought that Jordan would be as good as he became, expecially before the draft.

Another thought, Owners and GM's are trying to build the best TEAM not necessarily getting the best players at every position. Detroit is a good example. Zack is a very good player, but maybe just not on this team.

gatorpops (I could be MR)

__________________
"Young, old, it doesn't matter. It's all about how you play."

"LaMarcus is a poor man's nothing." (meaning he is the real thing)

"You just got a foretaste of what life is going to be like all the time in a couple of years.

"It was tough when what’s his name got hot"

...they've got to be a pain to prepare for defensively.

Ed O

Heh. Again, my realistic nature is marked down as mere pessimism.

To be fair, I think that your point was that Telfair was markedly younger, so youth was on his side. In fact, it's not.

I totally agree that because each are young, there's a huge potential for improvement (or failure to live up to potential). But my point is that Telfair doesn't have any advantage here in the youth department.

Damon's rookie year was one of his better years, but statistically it wasn't nearly as strong as Pauls. Further, he put up his (rather empty) numbers on a 21 win team, while Paul's team won nearly twice as many (38). Finally, Damon was 22 as a rookie, while Paul was only 20. Two years makes a significant difference.

Actually, and it's going to sound like I'm making this up... yes. He tore a right thumb ligament in January. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2283269 He didn't end up sitting out several weeks, but it's hard to know how much of that is due to the severity of their respective injuries and how much from being able to play through pain.

Sure, but again: it's not like it just happened to one of them.

Each of them are more veteran than Blake or Jack, so it seems MORE impressive to me that Paul was able to earn minutes over them, while Telfair wasn't able to beat out a pair of unproven players.

It's not too soon to tell that Paul was a LOT better than Telfair this past year. And while I can appreciate that people reject any conclusions about the futures of each at this point, I think that it's primarily wishful thinking to believe Telfair will ever be the player that Paul will be.

Ed O.

Fork

That's revisionist history. He was a consensus top 4 pick, not a consensus #1 pick. Otherwise, Milwaukie would have grabbed him. Or Atlanta, who's biggest need was at PG. Or Utah, who picked a different PG ahead of him. Everyone had him as top 4. Only in hindsight is he an obvious choice at #1. Next year, we may be saying the same things about Brandon Roy.

__________________
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935

If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by. -- Japanese proverb

Ed O

The only people that could are people that don't take new evidence and facts into account. I was one who argued that Paul was the superior prospect on this board (along with STOMP, iirc). It turns out (for once) that I was right, and still the same people who thought Telfair was superior then seem to be discounting Paul for some strange reason now.

But it's NOT the perspective that a successful draft is determined. Drafts can, really, only be judged in retrospect.

Ed O.

It's_GO_Time

If you check most mock drafts last year, the consensus #1, #2 and #3 were all the same. I know Utah came in and broke it up a little, but overall the entire basketball community knew who was going to be picked 1, 2 and 3. So I do put blame on the Blazer organization for passing on the obvious choice and trading down to avoid having to take Paul.

This year is a completely different feel, and it will be harder to blame the Blazers for their choice when there is no clear choice.

Kmurph

Amen....I agree with you 100% on this Hap.

Apparently, some people prefer to continually bash\blame\moan and complain about what could have been instead of discussing what is....

Paul had a great season...but I still say the jury is out on whether POR not taking him was the right move.....We have to wait a few years and see how Webster, Jack and Telfair develop.

I think it is hard for many fans...b\c right or wrong, Nash & co went with really young players, and most young players taje several years to develop..

It will also be interesting to see how Paul follows up his stellar season next year....He wouldn't be the 1st player to have a great rookie debut and then have his career descend into a tailspin or mediocrity...unlikely IMO, but possible..

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

It's_GO_Time

So is it too early to say drafting Jack was the right move?

Kmurph

If it works for you, then why can't I use it?

In actuality its not meant so much to bait someone, but that particular word really gives a much more vivid punch than bad\dumb\stupid....

As for it deflating your opinion of me...meh, its not like you have held much respect for others\my opinions in the 1st place....

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

Kmurph

Well, I think the debate is whether or not POR should have taken Paul or done the deal with Utah, netting them Webster, Jack (with the help of POR own 2nd round pick) and the #30 this year...

I think you have to look at what all those eventually allow you to get, and then see if 2 or 3 players ends up being better than 1...

The fact that webster is so young, and the #30 is as of yet undefined further cloud the comparison and the fact that Paul did have such a good year last year, also heavily weighs judgements in his favor at this present time...

Jack was a good pick for POR IMO...but the eternal debate here rests on whether getting him (and Webster and the #30) was worth passing on Chris Paul.

I added Telfair in there b\c he too is part of the reason why POR chose to pass on Paul, so his development is also important...

as Ed points out they are similiar in age, and Paul's stats are much better, at this point...there is room and time for improvment for Telfair b\c of his age (20)....and I am of the opinion that if he was given the ball and 35+ minutes his statistic comparison to Paul would look more favorable

__________________
Quit the Webster hate

Masbee

From what I see of this thread, you brought this on yourself.

Fork only brought up Paul to argue NOT to pass on BPA, to argue that is usually a mistake, in a thread all about Webster, Roy and the 2 guard spot.

You then proceed to make this thread all about Paul and Telfair, make your opinion (yes opinion, certainly not any undebateable fact) on the subject, and get extremely pissed that you didn't get the last word or that someone would debate or respond to your post.

If you are "tired" of all the threads discussing the past, please, as a admin, do us all a favor, and STOP POSTING IN THREADS THAT ANNOY YOU. And STOP bringing up the past in your own posts.

I am sick of it. Some posters LIKE talking about the past. Some posters think studying history and understanding what has happened is the way to understand what should happen in the future. "Those who fail to understand the past are doomed... blah, blah, blah." Which does lead forward. Unlike your contention that history only looks backward. That is only your opinion. And that too is up for debate.

Dan