Well i just went on his profile and searched his started threads. It's either how everyone needs to fuck off about Roy or something negative about Miller. Take a gander... http://sportstwo.com/search.php?searchid=671866 Basically I am telling that is against Roy, Miller or basically anyone on the Blazer line-up "negatively" to FUCK OFF.
This still is connected to Oden getting a max or near-max deal, which I say won't happen. Escalators don't really matter unless the overal dollar amount exceeds the constrainsts of a UFA contract. The Bird Rights are largely irrelevant, IMO, unless some team is dumb enough to overpay for him, and the Blazers double-down on that mistake. That said, I'd love to see Oden sign the rumored 4 year/$40 million offer, and make this entire scenario moot.
That's a lot of fucking off you'll have to do. You seem to be the only person on the board pleased with the performance of all of the Blazers. I guess wanting an upgrade at a position means I want the Blazers to lose, er sumthin'.
PapaG was (and is) intensely "loyal" to the Blazers bunch that started the rise back to playoff respectability. Roy, Outlaw, Aldridge, Blake...those guys. Extremely protective of them. He would become very annoyed if people questioned Outlaw's "low basketball IQ" or said that Blake wasn't very good. It was pretty obvious to me that he saw Miller as an interloper who shouldered Blake out of the starting spot and took touches away from Roy. So, he's been extremely critical of Miller for almost the entirety of Miller's tenure with Portland. For the past few months, he's thrown out a few "Miller played a good game" posts seemingly to prove that he has no bias toward Miller. But then he starts a thread about how weird (and troubling?) it is that Miller has never gotten out of the first round...not technically criticizing him, but obviously implying that Miller is a loser who drags his teams down in the playoffs. But honestly, it is what it is. Fans develop likes and dislikes of players for reasons all their own, and they're all valid for that individual.
I'm not sure what you're looking at, but there is one thread about Miller not winning, this thread, and 2 Roy thread. I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word "either".
I strongly disagree with the whole Miller and Roy can't coexist mantra. It was originally touted by Canzano, Quick and their clueless disciples and has now become some sort of bizarre urban legend even though it's been disproven multiple times on the actual basketball court. Go back and look at Roy's stats for the time between when Miller became the Blazers starting PG and Roy got injured. Roy had one of the most productive stretches of his entire career. Then go back and look at the Blazers record with Miller and Roy starting and playing heavy minutes together over the last 23 games of the 2009-2010 season. The fact is, when Miller and Roy have played together, AND ROY HAS BEEN HEALTHY, Roy enjoyed great individual success and the Blazers won games at a very high rate. Please explain how this fits this whole retarded Miller and Roy can't coexist dogma. And, if anything, Roy NEEDS Miller (or someone like him) more than ever moving forward. Roy is no longer able to create for himself like he could before his injuries. He now needs someone else to create for him and get him the ball when and where he can score. Due to the degenerative effect of his injuries, Roy is going to have to alter the way he plays, or he will fail and fail miserably. He needs to become less ball dominating and learn to come of screens and spot up for open shots. In spite of the amazing resurrection during the 4th quarter of game 4, Brandon Roy will never again be what he once was, at least not on anything like a consistent basis. Even hoping for one spectacular 12 minute stretch every six games seems overly optimistic to me. So, rather than dominating the ball, Roy needs to learn how to move without the ball, catch and shoot. And, to be successful in that role, he needs to embrace it, and learn to trust his PG to get him the ball. BNM
Well, let's be honest here. You literally posted that a part of you would like to see the Blazers lose so you could be "right" about Nate being a terrible coach, so maybe magnifier's oregonlive experience with a Roy poster are more applicable to you. I've never once posted that I hope the Blazers lose so I can say that i was correct Player X or Coach Y.
As a matter of fact, I am truly pleased with the Blazers this season. There are a lot of positives that outweigh the negatives. Pros: 1.) Just like you pointed out The Best Unit on the floor was Miller/Roy/Matthews/Wallace/LMA in the +/- category. I can't imagine what the +/- will be with Miller/Roy/Wallace/LMA/Oden next season. I assume we just have mismatch galore from 1-5. 2.) We had only 2 less wins from last season; especially after some terrible injuries. With a possible healthy line-up; we could be +8 wins next season. 3.) Wesley Matthews is only two years in the league. Definitely not even close to the potential. Only room for him is up. 4.) Roy is staying positive; which is again a great sign. He still has the fire to be the best. 5.) Aldridge's emergence this season was totally unexpected. He still has more room to improve his game. 6.) We had a great opportunity to win against Dallas. It wasn't like we were completely outmatched. A year later, and this may not happen again. 7.) The team seemed to truly stick together. There wasn't bickering like the past. It seemed everyone was more interested in winning than their individual stats. 8.) Cho is leaning on keeping Oden; which for me means he truly thinks Oden's injuries are behind him. VERY GOOD SIGN. 9.) Nate got an extension; which means that we won't have the distraction of will he coach for the Blazers next season. 10.) It's the fucking Blazers man!
I won't claim to have a crystal ball, but after 4-5 years of nothing but setbacks, disappointment and living in a fishbowl I'm guessing that Greg will sign the Qualifying Offer, take his 8.8 million, spend that year rehabbing and then go contract hunting on the open market. It's free money (minus the lockout) and it's not as if there won't be several suitors lined up ready and willing to commit a decent sized contract given the chance that he might turn into something decent. Off hand I wouldn't be shocked if he went somewhere like Miami where he can be a bit player and a kind of "X-Factor" guy rather than having to shoulder the burden that comes with being considered a foundational piece of a team's roster. As for Miller I don't think there are going to be a ton of suitors lined up looking to trade for him, between now and the draft. How much value does he offer a team when there is almost certainly going to be a lockout? (his expiring contract is meaningless since no salaries are going to be paid during that period of time, and his value as an actual player is just as meaningless when no games are being played.) All in all, I think there could be more questions than answers about this team when basketball resumes in the season succeeding the lockout year.
I dunno. I would say his expiring contract(non-guaranteed contract, actually, so the receiving team could just waive him) would carry the same value regardless of a lockout. There are always teams that want to get out of contracts for one reason or another, and we could potentially use Miller to do just that, take on someone's longer contract.
At least I didn't literally post that I hoped the Blazers would lose in the playoffs so I could be "right" about Miller being a loser in the playoffs and a cancer in the locker room...
Oh, so you didn't "literally" say that and I didn't "literally" say the other thing so I guess we are both wrong. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Yeah, I remember a few years back we were discussing a trade centered around Outlaw for Lowry, and PapaG basically went nutso wondering how anyone could consider such a trade. Well, now Outlaw is one of the worst contracts in the league and Lowry supplanted Brooks and is one of the most promising young guards in the league.
I didn't "literally" say that I wanted the Blazers to lose so I would be "right" about Nate McMillan. In fact, I have no idea why you keep quoting "right" because that word wasn't even mentioned in that post. But I'm glad that you keep bringing it up every time you disagree with me. In fact, you should just start every single one of your posts with, "Nate said that he wanted the Blazers to lose a year ago so that Nate would get fired..... but yes, I like pie."
