Here are some links to make your Friday go quicker.

RealGM takes a look at the Blazer season.

The AP looks at Greg Oden.

Kerry Eggers talks about the draft and a bunch of other stuff.

Dwight Jaynes argues for acquiring a pure point guard.

Joe Freeman tells us all about next week's lottery party.

Mike Barrett is talking about forwards and radio.

Casey Holdahl gives you the entire history of ping pong and the NBA.  Plus, as usual, he has enough multimedia to make your head spin.

Enjoy!

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Next Tuesday, May 20th, marks the annual ritual of ping-pong ball counting to determine the future of the NBA.  In case you're not familiar with the standings and odds, here is the list of teams and number of combinations they'll each have out of 1000:

1. Miami Heat    250
2. Seattle Supersonics 199
3. Minnesota Timberwolves 138
4. Memphis Grizzlies 137
5. New York Knicks 76
6. Los Angeles Clippers 75
7. Milwaukee Bucks 43
8. Charlotte Bobcats 28
9. Chicago Bulls 17
10. New Jersey Nets 11
11. Indiana Pacers 8
12. Sacramento Kings 7
13. Portland Trail Blazers 6
14. Golden State Warriors 5

As you can see, the odds of another Portland leap into the Top 3 are tiny.  Which is good.  Because I'm here to state, even as a Blazer fan who bleeds red and black and desires nothing so much as another championship in Portland, I do not want those picks.  Of course it would be nifty for the Blazers to get one.  We'd be in far better position for talent and trades.  But you'll have a hard time convincing me it's better for the strength, credibility, and health of this league for a team like Portland to nab a Top 3 pick over Minnesota or Seattle or even the Knicks.  As a Blazer fan I am not afraid to say that would be a travesty.  I am not afraid to bring up again that having 14 teams eligible for the number one pick is silly and that the lottery should be two-tiered, with only the seven worst teams getting chances at the top three spots.  Sure the chances are small for any individual team from the 8-14 slots to move up, but taken collectively those teams have 82 chances, which puts them as a group in 5th place overall this year.  It doesn't seem right for the Warriors, Blazers, Kings, Pacers, Nets, Bulls, and Bobcats to be sandwiched in between the Grizzlies and Knicks in terms of lottery probability.  None of those teams should get a high pick.  All of them (save perhaps the Kings) have a higher future potential than any of the worst five teams.  What the heck are those names doing in there?

Of course there's a temptation to say, "Whatever is good for the Blazers is what's right."  You can think of 100 reasons why Blazer fans are longer-suffering, why our team is more noble and deserving of luck, why our close misses (among all of those league-wide) should all of a sudden be turned into wild success by this bouncing ball of fate.  But you know what?  Talk to a Bucks fan about that, or a 'Wolves fan, or a Sonics fan.  They haven't suffered also?  They haven't dealt with close calls and dashed hopes?  There's no nobility in any of those franchises?  How would an outcome which put Portland's name above theirs be better in the grand scheme of things?

I am not a hypocrite.  I realize that this lottery system brought Greg Oden to Portland.  But I hasten to point out that we, too, were a bottom-seven team when that happened.  There's no conflict between that event and the assertion that only the worst teams should have a shot at #1.  I made this claim when Portland was in the worst tier and the system potentially worked to their disadvantage.  I stick by it when Portland is in the better tier and it could conceivably work to their great advantage.  It just...shouldn't...happen.

Would I take the pick if Portland wins it?  Of course...I'd have to.  Would I celebrate?  Part of me would.  But part of me would also think that's a real shame and somewhat of a crock.  If a team with the brightest cadre of young stars in the league gets one more while some of these other teams limp along in misery something isn't right.  You may say they made their own beds, which is true, but they're supposed to be able to find a way out of them as well.  Theoretically the draft is their vehicle.  It would be a shame if our fortune got in the way of that. 

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

I was walking around today trying to think of a good topic for discussion.  I had just passed the refrigerator on the way to the drinking glass cupboard when it hit me like a thunderbolt out of the blue:  a question so simple and obvious that it makes me ashamed I have never asked it in three-plus years of blogging.  I swear I felt so dumb, dumb, DUMB I nearly fell on the floor.  "Really, Dave?  REALLY?  You mean you've NEVER asked that?  But it's so OBVIOUS!"  Yeah, I know.

I shall remedy this now.  The question is this:

Explain to us why the Portland Trail Blazers are clearly, hands down, the best team in the history of the universe.

Note that this can mean, but does not necessarily mean, the current incarnation of the Blazers.  It could be just in general too.  The point is that everybody with an ounce of sense or discernment knows the Blazers are the best team ever.  We've just never talked about why.  So here's your chance.  Fire away.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

P.S.  Don't miss Ben's fantastic interview with new OSU head coach Craig Robinson below.

A few people have written about the Blazersedge Summer League plans so I thought I'd address things here to save cutting and pasting replies.

For those who aren't aware for the past couple of years I have headed down to Las Vegas to cover Summer League for the site and for some national publications.  It has been an absolute blast and I have been proud of the work we've done.  Since Summer League has been populated by the team's most significant players the last two summers many of the year's trends have been foreshadowed here before they've been anywhere else.

The hardest part of the trip both years was hands-down getting media credentials.  The first year we just flat-out couldn't and I had to cover the games from the stands.  Last year we had them and put them to good use, if nothing else by getting that famous "Buffet of Goodness" quote from Channing Frye.  Apart from that the trip was a breeze.  The first year one of the local media people was kind enough to get a double-occupancy room and let me stay in it.  Last year faithful-reader Ken put up both Photographer Dave and I in his very own house.  Both experiences were a blast and I made life-long friends.  It was also wonderful getting to know some of the other media personalities who cover the team...people you've seen interviewed here like Jason Quick, Mike Barrett, Mike Rice, Scott Zachary, Brian Wheeler, and so on.  The connections there were amazing and it was an honor.  Best of all was the Blazersedge get-together in Vegas.  We had around 20 people who had a blast getting to know each other and talking about the team.  That was one of the nights that made blogging worth it.

This year, though, everything has flipped around.  At this point I don't think getting media credentials would be a big issue.  Ironically enough, just when that puzzle gets solved the rest of it becomes problematic.  First and foremost, both my media connection and faithful-reader Ken have moved elsewhere.  That means I'd have to pay to put myself up in Vegas for 10-12 days (on top of already paying my way down there, food, and related expenses).   What's more, in case you didn't know it the ticket-link market on sports blogs has gone completely dead.  It used to be the bigger your blog the higher it was ranked on Google.  Ticket companies would buy text space on highly-ranked sports blogs to get higher Google ranks themselves.  That provided the travel money for Summer League (as well as contests).  Google has since nerfed the ranking of any blog with those links (including this one) and any ticket company buying them.  That means no ticket company will touch an ad like that with a ten-foot pole now.  Those links you see in the left sidebar are running out the last legs of last year's contract.  None of them will be renewed.  Since there is no other way for individual bloggers to sell ad space in this new format (notice the blogads are gone) that means this blog is officially bringing in zero income and will continue that way for the foreseeable future.  After years of blogging every day for almost free, I am now officially doing it whole-hog.

In the days when we were bringing in two paychecks at home this all might have been a non-issue.  But as you know we had Baby Point Guard this year and that means one less paycheck coming in and extra expenses for strained peas and diapers.  (Somehow those two are related.  I haven't quite figured it out yet.)

What this is all leading up to is it's going to be very difficult for me to go to Summer League this year.  The combination of basically tripling or quadrupling the trip expenses, plus having no blogging income to offset the cost, plus less money coming in at home seems pretty insurmountable at this point.  It's going to kill me to not be there.  I am really going to miss the networking and making connections.  I'm worried that the blog may suffer a little because of that.  Part of me is really tempted to just spend the money out of my own pocket anyway.  But having thought about it for the last two months I'm pretty sure this is one of those times I should be valuing my responsibilities as a husband and father over my responsibilities as a blogger.  I probably owe it to the little guy not to spend his strained peas money to cover the Blazers, no matter how much I love doing it.

I hope that's understandable to everyone.  Maybe some of the folks who are in the stands can give us reports of how things are going.  It's not quite the same as getting interviews and inside info from scouts and analysts, but it could still be cool (and, being home-grown, very Blazersedge-ish).

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

"[My job is] a culture changing job and that’s what we’re going to be working on."

~ Craig Robinson, Head Basketball Coach, Oregon State University.

You might remember: a few weeks back Oregon State Coach Craig Robinson joined Channing Frye and James Jones at an event in NE Portland called "Hoops for Change." Coach Robinson was helping get out the vote for his brother-in-law, Senator Barack Obama, but he was also starting to get himself familiar with the Portland community. Those in attendance were impressed by his easy smile, kind demeanor, and Oregon-State-Orange-Nikes.

This morning, smack in the middle of the week leading up to Oregon’s presidential primary, with his sister and the (odds-on) future leader of the free world flying in and out of the state, with the challenges of turning around a struggling Oregon State basketball program (choosing assistants and learning new recruiting trails chief among the difficulties ahead), Coach Robinson made some time to answer questions from Blazersedge.

I left Hoops for Change thinking, "Coach Craig Robinson is a coach that gets it." I left our phone conversation today even more convinced of this fact. To read more about Coach Robinson and Senator Obama, check out this excellent piece by Paul Buker of the Oregonian.

Without further ado, here is the transcript of our conversation in which Coach Robinson discusses recruiting, "changing cultures," and everybody’s favorite: the Duck vs. Beavers rivalry.

 ---------------------------------

Blazersedge: Coach, it was great to see you out in Northeast Portland and I thought that was a great way for you to quickly establish a strong connection with the Portland community. Would you say Portland is a center point of your recruiting strategy compared to other cities?

Blazersedge: What do you pinpoint as the biggest hurdle that currently faces your recruitment of Portland kids?

Blazersedge: In that vein, there has been a lot of talk around the Portland Trail Blazers franchise about "changing the culture" and most people point to General Manager Kevin Pritchard and Coach Nate McMillan as the tone-setters. Do you see yourself as a "culture-changing" personality in Corvallis.?

Blazersedge: What were your initial impressions of Corvallis?

Blazersedge: What transitions have you had to make in going from Brown University to Oregon State?

Blazersedge: USC has been in some turmoil this week with the scandal over OJ Mayo. Is this type of situation something that comes up during the recruiting process. If so, do you find yourself bringing up the cleanliness of the OSU program and your own reputation to recruits and their families? It seems like that would be very important to Ivy League players and their families.

Blazersedge: Understood. But does the integrity of both you and your program start to rise up to the top of the list of things that OSU can offer a student-athlete?

Blazersedge: There was a time when you’d walk into that living room situation and some kids would already have it made up in their mind: "I’m a Duck" or "I’m a Beaver." Have you started to get a sense for the in-state rivalry?

Blazersedge: Do you see yourself developing a professional rivalry with Oregon coach Ernie Kent?

Blazersedge: A new challenge for D1 basketball programs is the "one and done" player. Does that influence your recruiting outlook? Are you looking to target the 4 year starters or is it worth spending the time to chase the premier talents that may wind up going "one and done"?

Blazersedge: Who do you look to as your biggest influences and mentor when it comes to basketball and life?

Blazersedge: Are there lessons or experiences from your time in the corporate world that you draw on as a basketball coach?

Blazersedge: Are there any coaches in particular that you model your coaching style after?

Blazersedge: Recently, Senator Obama had some nice things to say about you. Have you found your relationship with Senator Obama to be a blessing or a curse to your professional career?

Blazersedge: Understood and thanks for your time, coach. Any final message for Beavers fans?

---------------------------------

There you have it. Thanks again to Coach Robinson and the OSU Athletic Department.

-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)

Last week, Brian Hendrickson mentioned that he didn’t know what the criteria were for retiring a player’s jersey.  I have read through the comments in other posts, sifted through some thoughtful emails, and consulted with various members of the media -- just about everyone seems to agree there is no "formula."   So I got to thinking… and thinking… and thinking… if I'm serious about making the case for Terry Porter, let’s do it… let’s make a formula for retiring jerseys.

A retired jersey is some combination of hard accomplishments (rings and stats, etc.) and soft accomplishments (reputation, community involvement, etc.)— but it’s a difficult balance to quantify.  

In attempting to create a simple, usable "formula," (my formula only uses addition so just bear with me when I refer to it as a formula) it’s important to note a clear difference between retiring a jersey and voting for a player to enter the Hall of Fame. Retiring a player’s jersey is, first and foremost, an organizational honor rather than an individual honor.  A retired jersey celebrates the player’s achievements but also those of the teams he played on. And, importantly, it celebrates the success of the franchise as a whole.  

With that thought in mind, my formula includes what I believe to be the top 5 most important criteria.  It balances team factors (2 of the five criteria), individual factors (2 of the five criteria) and a wild card factor (all of the rest of the resume-padding stuff that gets brought up during bar room debates on this subject).

For each of the five criteria, I ranked previous Blazer honorees (as well as Terry Porter) on a scale of 1 to 5 points.  Obviously, the criteria are different to get your jersey retired as a Celtic than they are as a Blazer. So, for our purposes, points are handed out on a Blazeres-relative basis: maximum points in any category are earned by the highest-achieving Blazers of all time, all non-Blazers be damned.  

A question is included with each criterion to assist you with your own ranking.

Criterion #1  Connection with the franchise.  

This one is most obvious limiting factor so it must come first. Clearly, the Blazers aren’t going to retire Hakeem’s jersey (he never played for us!) nor should they retire Pippen’s jersey (let Chicago keep him!) but they did retire Lloyd Neal’s jersey (lifelong Blazer!).  

Ask yourself: If this player was elected to the Hall of Fame, would he enter as a member of this team?

To determine how closely a player is connected with a franchise, one generally assesses 4 conditions:

1) Did the player play his most important years with the team?

2) Did the player play the majority of his career with the team?

3) Was the player drafted by the team?

4) Did the player retire with the team?

I awarded 5 points for players who met all 4 of the above conditions, 4 points for those who met 3 of the conditions and 3 points for those who met 2 of the conditions. 

Criterion #2  Success with the franchise. 

Success in the NBA is measured first and foremost by playoff success. Champions are remembered forever; finalists live on in both highlight footage and memory; everybody else drifts to the periphery.  Judging a player’s relative success across generations can be tricky, but its clear two factors are important to consider: the maximum success his team’s enjoyed and his role in creating that success.  

Ask yourself, "Can the story of the franchise’s glory days be told without mentioning this player?"  

To weigh both the team's success and the player's role in that sucess, I gave 5 points to a star on a championship team, 5 points to a starter on championship team, 5 points to a star on a finalist team, 4 points to a role player on a finalist team and 4 points to a starter on a finalist team.  I gave 2 courtesy points to Geoff Petrie as he was traded for Maurice Lucas and therefore missed out on the winning.

Criterion #3 Statistical Body of Work.  

After looking at team achievements, it’s time to turn to the players' individual work.  Of course, statistics don’t tell the full story, but they generally tell the important parts (Clyde was sick; Maurice was mean; Steele was a sub).  Both quality and quantity of numbers are important, as is longevity.

Ask yourself, "How dominant (and for how long) was this player?"

In assigning the points in this category, I took into account: league-leading tallies, franchise/league records, double-doubles, 10+ year careers, and anything else that truly jumps out of the box score/ stat sheet.

Criterion #4 Individual Awards.  

Individual awards don’t come easy in the NBA.  Amazing seasons are forgotten by history all the time so those years that were acknowledged at the time they occurred or those that have stood the test of time are certainly relevant in determining whether a player is an all-time great member of an organization.

Ask, "What are the standout individual achievements on this player’s resume and how do they compare to other franchise greats?"

Assigning points here was simple: the more individual achievements, the more points earned out of 5.  Achievements taken into consideration include: all-star appearances; end of season awards (MVP, All-NBA first team, etc.); franchise records.

Criterion #5 The Intangibles.

I tried to bottle up all the murkiness that enters this debate into a final category.  This section takes into account the player’s personality, contributions to the community and investment in the organization.   

Ask yourself, "Is the player a credit to the organization, the city and the league?"

In assigning points, I included achievements such as being a: founding member; local legend; fan favorites; playoff hero; active Portland community member; a coach or front office member for the Blazers or in the NBA as a whole.

While this category is certainly subjective, it is only 20% of the overall picture so haggling over a point up or down should not make or break a candidate’s application.

Summing Up The Points

Adding up the scores in all categories is a simple matter.  Out of a total 25 possible points, here’s how our current honorees (and Terry Porter) scored.

Conclusions

Clearly there are two groups: 1) Those at or above 20 points and 2) those below 20 points.  I think most reasonable fans would agree that Petrie, Lucas, Drexler and Walton are no-brainers and not worthy of argument.  

The second group is where most of the arguments arise.  Were Twardzik’s and Hollins’ contributions in 1977 enough to get them in?  What makes Lloyd Neal so much more important than other role players in Blazers history? My formula, admittedly, doesn’t answer those questions.  However, it does make the case that Terry Porter is at least as deserving as 4 out of the 8 Blazers honorees.  

No, TP, isn’t quite in the absolute upper echelon… but he is the next closest thing.  This is where the spirit of the "Honor Terry Porter" movement arises from: when taking everything into account, the man deserves the same recognition given to a number of players before him.  If the team’s cutoff for eligibility hovers in the 15-17 range on my scale, I think a compelling case can be made that TP measurably exceeds this minimum standard.

Now I ask you: how well did this formula succeed in quantifying the jersey retirement process?  How accurately does it rank current honorees? 

As always, send me your thoughts and memories of Terry Porter.

-- Ben (benjamin.golliver@gmail.com)

I remember when I was a much younger Blazer fan, back in the Drexler era.  After watching us lose to the Pistons in ’89-’90 and then fall to the You-Know-Whos when the Series-That-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken-Of went south in ’91-’92, I decided that I might be open to considering alternatives.  I wasn’t championing massive changes, mind you.  I loved that team.  But I thought there might be just a little wiggle room to bring that piece which would propel us over the top.  So I concocted a trade in my young fan mind.  It was a nice little trade, simple in concept:  we would send a promising young forward (like, say, Cliff Robinson), a couple other pieces (maybe Terry Porter if they insisted), and a draft pick or two to the Detroit Pistons for Isiah Thomas.  Keep in mind this was the then-All-Star and Franchise-Hero Isiah Thomas, not the buffoon front office man.  I don’t know how many times I repeated that trade possibility over and over in my head.  I know it was enough that it began to make sense.

So why didn’t we ever see a lineup of Isiah Thomas, Clyde Drexler, Jerome Kersey, Buck Williams, and Kevin Duckworth?  Because the Detroit front office wasn’t filled with complete nimrods, that’s why.  Looking back now I can’t even tell you why I thought it would have any chance to fly.  Fandom does strange things.

Another example (which I have cited a couple of times previously) was the collection of Hakeem Olajuwon rumors in the early 90’s.  Every two summers or so somebody would see the Dream shopping for houses in Lake Oswego…the obvious prelude to the Big Trade ™.  Needless to say the real estate agents in the L.O. never could close that deal and presumably neither could the Blazers. 

It is in the spirit of these memories that we create this thread.  As fans, and sometimes even as media folks, we repeat (or hear repeated) things that, while far from the realm of possibility, become more plausible by their mere repetition.  The internet has aided and abetted our private musings, making them public and thus all the more likely to gain credence.  This “Never Gonna Happen” thread is our own little reality check.  I want to hear the things you’ve heard (or thought) which upon further reflection don’t have a snowball’s chance in Phoenix of coming true.

In homage to my long-ago trade proposition and the local superstar sightings, I will open the proceedings:

Chris Paul is not coming to the Blazers.  Never gonna happen.  We had our chance to draft him a couple of years ago.  He’s gone for good now.  New Orleans will not let their M.V.P.-level, ticket-selling, NBA-commercial-featured guard go at any price.  If we heard New Orleans fans speculating on Brandon Roy and Greg Oden becoming Hornets in the near future we’d guffaw mightily and claim they had a few screws loose.  What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.  And we have to gander at some other point guard.

That’s mine.  Feel free to add yours.  What assumption or speculation--either Blazer-specific or even around the league--do you hear that’s just Never Gonna Happen?  Go ahead.  Get them off of your chest.  You know you want to.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

I hate to begin the week on a solemn note, but I was thinking about this all weekend.  We talked last week about the potential impact of Greg Oden, which is frankly enormous.  But what about the other side of that coin?  We already lost Greg for an entire season.  What if his injuries end up being chronic?  What are the Blazers' prospects then?

The test case in this scenario is the Houston Rockets.  Their dynamite combo of Yao Ming and Tracy McGrady should have been foolproof, especially when surrounded by the scorers and workers they had this year.  There's just one flaw in the plan:  they can't keep Yao on the court for an entire season.  You have to give the guy credit.  I had reservations about him when he was drafted first overall--not that the pick was in error, but rather how much impact he would ultimately have compared to the best centers who had been drafted first.  Yao has worked on his game, learned the NBA, and he's the best pure center in the game right now and one of the most influential players overall.  But without his health it doesn't mean much in terms of the team's ultimate aspirations.  The Rockets are still good, but they're spinning their wheels without their pivotal player.

That's exactly the future which awaits Portland if Oden can't go.  The Blazers can certainly be good without him.  Brandon Roy, Lamarcus Aldridge, and this exciting group of youngsters will certainly become a familiar playoff team.  With enough experience and drive they can probably reach the second round, perhaps even the conference finals if the ball bounces right.  But any hopes of Finals appearances and rings rest squarely on Oden's shoulders.  No monster in the middle equals less defensive cohesiveness, the return of rebounding woes, and fewer high-percentage scoring opportunities.  In the playoffs that spells disaster.  You can get by for a while but a really good team is going to bake your biscuits if you show weakness in any of those areas.  We might be able to make a semi-run without Lamarcus or even without Brandon.  It would be hard but we could survive a series or two.  But missing Greg makes the playoff run a no-go from the start.

The difference is, in essence, the difference between the ascending arcs of San Antonio and the Rockets in the new century.  Both are good.  Both sets of fans have plenty of reason to be happy and buy tickets.  But you'd never mistake the two teams for each other.

Personally I'm hoping pretty hard that Oden holds up.

This is my take on the one thing that could go wrong with the Blazers' hopes for the near future.  What is yours?  If you were to pick one thing that would send us off-track and hamstring any title hopes we might carry, what would it be?  Share below.

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

Portland isn't in the playoffs (yet!) but we're seeing even more lessons that will be applicable once we start battling seriously in the post-season again.  Two quickies from the last week or so:

1.  These are seven-game series, not two-game series.  As is increasingly typical of fans and media in the modern age a ton of folks are all-too-willing to anoint any minor trend as universal truth.  When the L*kers and Hornets got up 2-0 it was a foregone conclusion that they would be featured in the Western Conference Finals.  Not so fast.  Now granted, that exact matchup is still likely, but it's now a three-game sprint in both cases.  The Hornets are playing the defending champions and this decade's dynasty team.  Even should they win, it was too early to count the Spurs out.  The young Blazers (and their fans) would do well to take this lesson to heart.  Whatever our first breakthrough series win ends up being, it's likely to be against an established team.  It takes four wins to beat them, not just a couple in a row at home.

2.   This is a physical sport.  We talked about this on and off during the regular season but you're starting to see the real importance now with all of the flagrant fouls and star-mauling.  The Blazers will be stylish, skilled, and oh-so-easy to root for.  But unless they have the physical mindset they're going to get clobbered.  This doesn't necessarily mean the Blazers themselves have to thug it up.  We don't need a bench full of goons.  We do, however, need the ability to take a punch and remain standing.  It's absolutely, positively guaranteed that another team is going to push us hard in a seven-game series to see if we'll get distracted or break.  The sooner we show that doesn't faze us the easier it'll be to get past it and start playing basketball.

I'm sure there will be more...

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)

You can see the writing on the wall already.  Unless or until some kind of move happens this is going to be the Summer of Endless Point Guard Discussion.  If you haven't seen Sergio Rodriguez's latest interview chatter check out Blakebilla's diary to the right.  Fascinating stuff.

So given that we're fated to six months of PG chatter, answer me a simple question:

Who is the best Blazer point guard ever?

You can use any criteria you wish.  Please illuminate why you're thinking the way you do.  If you think any of our current guards or any guard we might  pick up could develop some of the things you like in your Greatest PG, let us know that too.

Please do me one favor, though.  Every time we do something like this somebody in the first dozen comments provides a laundry list of every significant player who ever played the position.  They say, "I like Player A for this and Player B was that and Player C..." and so on through Players Q, R, and X until they finally vote, effectively making everybody else's comment superfluous.

I know it's a hard question.  I know you know are an encyclopedia of Blazer point guards.  That's not the point.  (Pun semi-intentional.)  Just pick one and give us a detailed explanation as to why.  Go deep into the subject, not wide.

We'll tally the votes informally at the end of the weekend. 

--Dave (blazersub@yahoo.com)