Page 5 of 6
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:10 am
by pr0nny
Gotta love NBA.com's piece of s**t live score updater thing. It's still showing 83-72 in the fourth =/
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:15 am
by Voodoo
breaker91 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
I was never upset that at that decision, the one that still hurts for me is Nash passing on Chris Paul in favour of Telfair.
That was Webster over CP3... But who would you rather have CP3 or Brandon and LMA? I love CP3 but I think its worked out in our favor so far
.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:16 am
by d-train
Dakotah612 wrote:Obviously Jefferson is far superior to Telfair but we would just have another situation like Zach Randolph. Going into double/tripple teams, forcing shots, shooting under 50%, big numbers in losses and doesn't make his teammates better.
How many players make their teammates better? If not for Roy, Blazers wouldn't have a player like that.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:31 am
by NBAMAN2006
I am really worried for the Bulls game after playing so bad tonight. Even when up 13, we should have been up 23. The Wolves are plain atrocious. Certainly worse than the 2005/06 Blazers. Its almost depressing. They have one starting caliber player(Al), one decent bench big(Craig Smith) and a project SF(Brewer. Thats it.
A win is a win, but if we play tomorow like we did tonight, we will loose.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:33 am
by taufblazers33
can someone please post LaMarcus's fast break dunk on you tube?
it was amazing!!
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:36 am
by TBpup
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:45 am
by d-train
I see no resemblance. She is beautiful and Jack is about as unfortunate as a person can be.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:50 am
by taufblazers33
d-train wrote:I see no resemblance. She is beautiful and Jack is about as unfortunate as a person can be.
are you kidding me!? Jack is a cutie. I would do him anyday. (ssshh..dont tell my girlfriend this)
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:08 am
by PDXKnight
I must admit, I sensed that they weren't playing up to their level of play tonight. They came out with a win but I would have liked to see them play with more intensity. Nevertheless, a win is always a plus. Go Blazers!
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:35 am
by Twith
I think Sergio makes his teammates better. He had 8 assists about 12 seconds after he got in the game tonight.
He's Joel's only hope of scoring.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:35 am
by mojomarc
Just watching the first half now--Sergio had the most insance six minutes of playing time I think I've ever seen. Hopefully after that he earns a few more minutes on this trip. It didn't hurt that Jones couldn't miss.
You guys thought I was nuts when I suggested we might want to go after Kopono in the offseason (before the draft, obviously)--Jones' performance in the first half was exactly the sort of thing I was envisioning Kopono bringing. I couldn't be happier we got a better version of him.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:36 am
by Spykes
mojomarc wrote:Just watching the first half now--Sergio had the most insance six minutes of playing time I think I've ever seen. Hopefully after that he earns a few more minutes on this trip. It didn't hurt that Jones couldn't miss.
You guys thought I was nuts when I suggested we might want to go after Kopono in the offseason (before the draft, obviously)--Jones' performance in the first half was exactly the sort of thing I was envisioning Kopono bringing. I couldn't be happier we got a better version of him.
And cheaper!
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:50 am
by mojomarc
So I just got to the point in the game where the ball went over the backboard and the ref ruled it inbounds. Luckily, I have a copy of the official NBA rules. Here's what it says:
RULE NO. 4
DEFINITIONS
Section I
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:00 am
by d-train
When I saw the play, I too thought it was out of bounds but I believe the explanation was that the ball didn't make contact with anything that was out of bounds before it landed back in play. So, if the ref was correct that the ball didn't touch anything, I would say he made a good call.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:18 am
by mojomarc
d-train wrote:When I saw the play, I too thought it was out of bounds but I believe the explanation was that the ball didn't make contact with anything that was out of bounds before it landed back in play. So, if the ref was correct that the ball didn't touch anything, I would say he made a good call.
Except in other instances of the rules, the ball passing directly out of bounds makes for a turnover even if it doesn't touch anything. As a certified referee in two sports, one thing I've learned is that when you have to make an interpretation of the rules, the first place you want to look is at other similar rules to discover the intent. In this case, other areas of the rules suggest the intent is that the ball should not pass behind the backboard without it being a turnover even if it doesn't touch anything, so the interpretation in this should, it seems to me, be that the ball indeed went out of bounds and should have resulted in a turnover regardless of whether it landed in bounds or not.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:12 am
by Pattycakes
Anyone who can't see the resembelance between Jarrett and r&b singer Neyo isn't a friend of mine.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mJVM21ER5S0
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:43 am
by Yadadimean
^^^^HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA awww hell. He does look like neyo.thats crazy. I never thought of that
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:05 am
by breaker91
Voodoo wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
That was Webster over CP3... But who would you rather have CP3 or Brandon and LMA? I love CP3 but I think its worked out in our favor so far
.
Not exactly, if you recall Nash didn't even consider working out any of the top flight PGs such as Paul, Williams or Felton because after 1 unremarkable season in the pros he was still convinced that Telfair was our PG of the future. Boy was he ever wrong. I am happy with how things turned out as well. I'd imagine I'd be just as happy if CP3 was a Blazer as well.
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:12 am
by Yadadimean
Posted: Thu Jan 3, 2008 12:03 pm
by d-train
mojomarc wrote:Except in other instances of the rules, the ball passing directly out of bounds makes for a turnover even if it doesn't touch anything. As a certified referee in two sports, one thing I've learned is that when you have to make an interpretation of the rules, the first place you want to look is at other similar rules to discover the intent. In this case, other areas of the rules suggest the intent is that the ball should not pass behind the backboard without it being a turnover even if it doesn't touch anything, so the interpretation in this should, it seems to me, be that the ball indeed went out of bounds and should have resulted in a turnover regardless of whether it landed in bounds or not.
I think it is consistent to say the ball is not out of bounds until it makes physical contact with something out of bounds. For example, the ball can pass across the courts side or end lines and a player can reach across the line to retrieve it back into play. Or, a player can physically cross the courts side or end lines and deflect the ball back into the play area as long as he or the ball doesn't make contact with something out of bounds before the player jumping out of bounds last touches the ball. Another example is the behind the backboard circus shot that counts if it goes in. If a shooter can shoot the ball from behind the backboard without him or the ball being ruled out of bounds then that is an example of the ball behind the backboard being still in play.
