Very interesting http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindblazersbeat/2010/03/portland_110_sacramento_94_bra.html
Indeed. Perhaps he should ask Roy to be "100% Real" back about Martell's own game. I *STILL* say Webster has All-Star talent, and WHEN he's confident and driven, he's damn dangerous on both ends of the court. I just wish the switch would go off in his head to reach his potential.
Out of rhythm he has a real hard time because he can't create for himself, but I think in an offense with a little more motion Webster, Rudy, and Batum would all be much more dangerous. Nate just needs to add wrinkles to the plays (back-cuts, off-ball screens, etc).
Agreed. While Webster may or may not have emotional issues, I think his basketball problem is really just lack of talent. He may have seemed "projectible" as a raw high schooler, but it turns out that he's not really that talented, by NBA standards. He has a smooth looking shot (which isn't exceptionally accurate), sometimes-solid defense and that's about it.
If we had gotten Chris Paul, we would be a lot like New Orleans right now. In other words, not as good as we are today.
I think, to a certain extent, many fans still have the same problem with Webster that they have with Oden. If they let go of their hopes that he will one day be a good basketball player, they will have to face the realization that we passed on Deron Williams, Chris Paul, and Kevin Durant.
Except Oden really is very good. He's just had non-catastrophic (from a career standpoint) injuries that have shelved him. There's a reason not to "let go" of hopes on Oden...he's got proven major talent. Webster has stagnated for many years now.
And yet every year we hear the same things. "This is Martell's year. This will be the year that he breaks out. Martell looks great this year." etc etc etc. Some fans just cling to the hope that Martell isn't a catastrophic bust. Similarly, if Oden never does maintain his health through an entire season, he will be a catastrophic bust.
There's no way to know that. Actually, there's a very good chance we'd still have Roy and Aldridge. Probably not Oden, but a team with Paul, Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Przybilla or Camby would be pretty damn good.
I don't see how there is a "very good chance" we would have Roy, Batum, Aldridge, and Camby if we had taken Paul.
How would we not have Roy? We traded Telfair and Ratliff for the Randy Foye pick, and then Foye for Roy. It's debatable whether we'd be out of the lottery, so who knows if we'd have Aldridge. Batum was a late pick. I don't see how our team would be so completely different if we had taken Paul.
Roy brought this same thing up in the post-game interview with MB. IMO, yet another rung in his maturation process. BTW, the Roy/Miller 2-man game has become a pleasure watching develop over this season.
A big reason why it's hard to say we'd still have Roy or LaMarcus is because of the improvement that is implied that Paul would've provided. The Hornets improved by 20 games (18 to 38). We would've had to have stayed around the same winning %'s to be able to get the high lotto pick AND have kept Telfair over Paul's first season. It is incredibly unlikely that the team would've been able to get Roy, and it's almost impossible to think they'd get both Roy and Aldridge. If Paul is so good, the team would've improved too much to continue being able to get high lottery picks and use them (and their assets) to obtain LaMarcus and Roy, and then later on Oden and Batum.
Having a real (high quality) point guard on this team for Roy to learn to play with may end up being one of the most positive developments in his early career. Granted Miller probably only has two more years, tops, of high level play left in him and we'll be looking for PGOTF (tm) but it's a good thing in my mind that he's learning to move without the ball knowing that it will come back to him when the time is right.
