i think his potential waas shown in the utah game- it's pretty high. I dont know if he'll reach his potential, but Webster is potentially a shoot the lights out of the building players with the build to be a good defender as well. He was younger than Aldridge/roy when he came to the Blazers and at his contract price, I don't mind waiting on his potential.
This is exactly how I see it. I don't think Webster is close to being the most athletic player on the team. Outlaw, Batum, Bayless are all much more athletic than Webster. I think Martell is on par athletically with Roy, LMA which is not bad at all, just just as good as the earlier mentioned. They are however the best players on the team because good athletic ability along with skill and bball IQ go a long long way.
Mine... 1. LMA 2. Roy 3. Oden (could EASILY change if he gains his athleticism, gets in bball shape, and loses weight to high school level while staying strong) 4/5 Bayless/Batum 6. Rudy 7. Webster 8. Outlaw 9/10 Przybilla/Blake out of the 10 important players on our roster, imo.
This is my ranking of player potential: 1. Roy 2. Oden 3. Aldridge 4. Batum 5. Bayless 6. Fernandez 7. Outlaw 8. Webster 9. Freeland 10. Rodriguez 11. Koponen
It may be Bayless, but according to Quick and the Mikes, who get to see the teams in drills, Martell is always wins the sprints and conditioning tests, so he's the fastest player on the team. His numbers at the nba combine weren't that great, but me may have improved a lot since then.
Quickest is not necessarily the most athletic. Why is body control not part of athletic ability? - because if it is this list starts with Brandon Roy...
You do realize that Webster is only now about the same age as Roy was when he was a Rookie? Would Roy have been as good out-of-the-gate if he had come straight from high school? No. There was talk about this past year being Martell's year - we saw a glimpse of why in his one pre-season game. Hopefully he recovers fully from his injury and this next year can be the year that no-one talks about his potential anymore, just about how good he actually is. Gramps...
Jermaine is the only player I can think of that took 4 years to develop. Even High School players tend to show what they are within 3 years. Nobody is very excited about Gerald Green, because he hasn't done squat since being in the NBA, even though he's the same age as Webster. I hope he does have a break out year, but it seems pretty rare for any player to bloom this late in their career.
Webster is improving every year and he was injured this entire season. As his body matures more, he'll feel more comfortable with himself and in the game. A lot of his problems have been mental, not physical limitations. He should be good to go.
Not really. He played more minutes per game every year, so his numbers looked better, but he was still playing at similarly low levels each year...just doing it more minutes every game. 2005-06: 11.6 PER 2006-07: 9.9 PER 2007-08: 12.0 PER It's not that he started out as a bad player that concerns me. He was only 18-19 in his rookie season. It's that he's basically shown next to no improvement in his three healthy seasons. And the statistical measure fits what I've seen on the court...he's no better a passer or slasher than when he entered the league (except for a few games at the end of the 2007-08 season, which is also what made people think Frye was going to have a big season this year). He's only marginally better on defense.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
I think that if given the chance and is here next year.. a lot of people in this thread will look very silly IMO.
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.
