Real

Interview with web blogger and Blazer fan Henry Abbott

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ger/index.html

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by cpawfan Quote: Originally Posted by HB KG himself said Zacharias is the hardest low post player to cover Well to be fair, that was after Stern changed the league policy on carrying weapons and KG could no longer distract Zach with his pump, uzi and couple M-16s.

ThePrideOfClyde

Good interview. I especially liked when he said, "The cure for what ails us is already marinating." Great quote.

__________________
BRANDON
ROOKIE
OF THE
YEAR

blakeback

I like TrueHoop, but IMO that was a weak interview.

Too early to tell what Nate showed in his first year as Blazers coach? How much more time do you need to rate 2005/06?

it was Nate's sixth season.

LameR

Nate could be considered young though.

__________________
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)

The LameR has spoken. C^2

wastro

If you want to rate 2005/2006, you'd be right to call it a failure. But if you're rating Nate's performance, I think that's a different story. It's hard to rate Nate, because he went from a veteran team that was playing solid basketball to a young rebuilding team that's subsequently shifted its focus and cleaned house since his arrival. You can't base a coach's success or failures on his first season, IMO. Not to compare the two, but even John Wooden was a losing coach his first season out.

If this really is a process that might take three or four years, you can't base Nate's performance on how the team lost when they were supposed to lose. Base his performance on a couple years down the line, when the pieces are in place and the players grow together. Base it on how he molds the team and brings them together.

STOMP

Thats exactly my take on ZR. I think he'd be best utilized off the ball cleaning up the misses from a guard dominated offense.

STOMP

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A&NR=1

Redbeard

I don't know how anyone can compare Nate and Avery Johnson. Their situations are totally different. Nate did well in Seattle with a good couple of stars and a group of players he knew. Avery did well with a superstar, a team that he knew well and had been trained to coach, and a owner that would buy him anything he needed.

Nate's performance last year was considerably better that what Cheeks was able to do with an all-star lineup. Yes, Nate lost, but at least his game plan and plays were be observable. I think Nate did well and his coaching can't really be taken into account for the loses due to the injuries and personell problems we had.

Great comments about the team. I appreciate his comments about Randolph also. It is nice to hear a positive thought about his game.

__________________
The age of dynasties is upon us.