# Chad Ford: Blazers want Westbrook or Love



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Geez, this is getting ridiculous. Don't know what to make of this, but here it is . . .



> The Blazers have also been talking to the Grizzlies about a deal that would send the No. 5 pick to Portland. The Blazers have a number of assets, including Travis Outlaw, that they could throw the Grizzlies' way. *The Blazers covet Russell Westbrook and Kevin Love.*


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draf...ry?columnist=ford_chad&page=Draf****ch-080626


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

I wish he'd make up his mind.


----------



## MrJayremmie (Dec 29, 2007)

lol. KP is throwing out smokescreens like crazy. 

LOL.


----------



## Darkwebs (May 23, 2006)

Why would we want Love?


----------



## blue32 (Jan 13, 2006)

mmmm.... love....it makes the world go 'round.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

On Ford's chat just now:



> I suspect they'll get something done to move up a few spots and get Augustin or Westbrook.


No surprises. I'm still wondering if all this leaking of the list of Westbrook, Augustin and Alexander is a smoke screen to help Gallinari or someone else slip.


----------



## Crimson the Cat (Dec 30, 2002)

I would actually love it if we came out with Love and Westbrook. Chemistry wise I think they'd fit very well. They add even more talent and depth than we have. 

Damn. Is it fricking time for the draft or what!


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I'm waiting for a report that we are after Malik Hairston from Oregon. :biggrin:

GO BEAVS! :cheers:


----------



## axs31 (Jul 5, 2006)

Pretty interesting that a lot of teams at the top covet somebody a bit lower...

#2 Miami -> Mayo (#3)
#3 Minnesota -> Love (#5 probably)
and then Memphis @5 is looking to trade down... possibly for #10, which we are also in the mix for, but maybe even for the #13.

Man, I don't know, it seems like getting up to #2 could be done, but there would have to be just such a perfect storm, and we could easily get stuck with Love at 5, if Minnesota decides to keep Mayo. Which would suck with maybe all of Gordon/Westbrook/Gallinary available.

The whole thing would have to be done before the draft or in such a short amount of time. There are such big expectations, I feel like we may have to brace ourself for something modest. KP has his work cut out for him with everybody trying to outdeal each other like crazy.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Some unfortunate NBA team is going to be very disappointed in Kevin Love in a few years. I sincerely hope it isn't us.

-Pop


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

MrJayremmie said:


> lol. KP is throwing out smokescreens like crazy.
> 
> LOL.


Yup!!! hahahah wow gotta love KP!!!!! We don't want Love lol


----------



## alext42083 (Nov 7, 2003)

Kevin Love? NOOOO!


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

At this point, I can conclude the writers know nothing. The reason? They have listed every player in the lotto as somebody the Blazers are seeking. I know the Blazers have 10% of the picks in the draft, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

hasoos said:


> At this point, I can conclude the writers know nothing. The reason? They have listed every player in the lotto as somebody the Blazers are seeking. I know the Blazers have 10% of the picks in the draft, but this is ridiculous.


Smoke screens baby. We want Mayo.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I'm waiting for a report that we are after Malik Hairston from Oregon. :biggrin:
> 
> GO BEAVS! :cheers:


Better yet, CJ Giles from Oregon State.

But seriously, I'm shocked that Love hasn't been mentioned more often. I truly believe that he's the 3rd best prospect in this draft. He's undersized and underathletic, but he's skilled enough to make a real impact in the league.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Kevin Pritchard's draft day wheeling and dealing has certainly made the NBA draft interesting again - not just for the Blazers, but for the other teams as well.

Let's see, in the last two days there have been rumors reported involving the Blazers trading up for the 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, and 10 picks, and that we "covet" or are "targeting" Beasley, Mayo, Westbrook, Alexander, Love, and Augustin. 

So, by process of elimination, it looks like we'll end up trading up 4 and taking Bayless.

Seriously, I think ONE of the rumors is accurate (throw enough **** at the wall, something's bound to stick), and all these other late breaking rumors are smokescreens deliberately released by the team to draw attention away from the player the Blazers REALLY want. 

I personally think Pritchard has big plans and is trying to move all the way up to 2 or 3 and grab Beasley or Mayo.

BNM


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Fork said:


> I'm shocked that Love hasn't been mentioned more often. I truly believe that he's the 3rd best prospect in this draft. He's undersized and underathletic, but he's skilled enough to make a real impact in the league.


:rofl2::clap2::lol:



> But seriously


Oh, you were being serious?

-Pop


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

Love? Hmmm...

Do you think LaMarcus could play SF? He almost has the game for it. KG was listed as a SF for a while....


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Kevin Love suffers from the white man syndrome. No matter how good he is, people look at him and think, "Oh, another white stiff." If he turns out to be a stud, there are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face.


----------



## LittleAlex (Feb 14, 2008)

I am pretty sure Portland is going after both of the Lopez twins. Either that, or a package deal for Ricky Davis.


----------



## World B. Free (Mar 28, 2008)

Stevenson said:


> Love? Hmmm...
> 
> Do you think LaMarcus could play SF? He almost has the game for it. KG was listed as a SF for a while....


I would put Love at 3 before LMA. I think... lol


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

From Chad Ford's chat today:



> Tyler (Woodland, WA): What are you hearing about the Blazers this morning? Any activity?
> 
> Chad Ford: Yeah .. Kevin "Dr. Deal" Pritchard is talking to everyone. Honestly, he has as much energy and creativity as any GM I've ever met. The guy is constantly trying to make his team better. His philosophy of gathering assets is a good one. It sets him up for bigger deals down the road. I suspect they'll get something done to move up a few spots and get Augustin or Westbrook. At 27, look for them to go international with either Nicolas Batum, Ante Tomic or Serge Ibaka.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Stevenson said:


> Love? Hmmm...
> 
> Do you think LaMarcus could play SF?


No, but a 3-man 4/5 rotation of Love, Aldridge and Oden would be sick. Between the two positions, there is 96 minutes to go around - that comes to 32 MPG each. Oden is strictly a 5, but both Aldridge and Love can play the 4/5. Love doesn't have the size to start at center in the NBA, but with Oden he wouldn't have to. He is a strong kid, who thrives on physical contact and had very solid and well developed low post moves. He would be able to hold his own, without difficulty, against most 2nd unit centers, as can Aldridge.

When I think about it, in a 3rd big man, Kevin Love is the perect fit with Gred Oden and LaMarcus Aldridge. You'd still start Oden at the 5 and Aldridge at the 4, but when Oden comes out, Aldridge guards the other teams 5 and Love matches up with their 4. On offense, Love plays the low post, where he can bang and bruise, and Aldridge continues to knock down the the face-up mid-range jumpers that he shoots so well. In this role, Love is a great compliment to Aldridge. He would play the banger, providing a wide body, a tough physical presence and rebounding - none of the things Aldridge is especially good at (he completes him). When Aldridge comes out, you play Oden at the 5 and Love at the 4. Love has the range on his jumper and the great passing ability that would make him a great compliment to Oden in the low post - and Oden and Love together would be a VERY strong rebounding unit.

This is the advantage of having guys like Aldridge and Love that can play multiple positions and roles. Pritchard likes flexibility, and this would give the Blazers that in their front court. 

Given that we already have two outstanding young bigs and two capable back-ups, I hadn't really thought much about Love on the Blazers. However, adding him would allow the Blazers to use Joel and/or Frye in a trade to acquire a PG or small forward.

BNM


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> :rofl2::clap2::lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, actually I am serious. I think he'll put up Zach Randolph like numbers, but with a lot more assists and a lot fewer mental health issues. 22 and 10? That sounds like a #3 prospect to me.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

I made the mistake of thinking Love wouldn't amount to anything in college. I won't make the same mistake with the NBA.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Talkhard said:


> Kevin Love suffers from the white man syndrome. No matter how good he is, people look at him and think, "Oh, another white stiff." If he turns out to be a stud, there are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face.


Bingo! I don't think Love is going to be a superstar, but I will be very surprised if he doesn't have a very long and VERY solid NBA career. What he lacks in althleticism, he more than makes up for in skills and effort. He tested/measured much better than expected at the pre-draft camp. His jumping ability, lane agility time and 3/4 sprint were all far above average for a big man. He looks like a fat, doughy white kid, so people assume he'll be a stiff. He won't be.

I compared him to Bill Laimbeer in another thread a couple weeks ago. He's an inch or two shorter than Laimbeer, but has a similar skill set (great shooting range, excellent passing and great rebounder) - and demeanor. Laimbeer won two rings with Detroit, lead the league in rebounding a couple times, had a long, productive career and was universally hated and vilified outside of Detroit. Sounds exactly like the kind of career I expect Kevin Love to have. The difference I see is that Love, coming into the league, has a more developed low post game and is an even better passer than Laimbeer was. And, while he won't qaulify for the US Olympic team in the decathalon, he's also more athletic than Laimbeer (but, then so am I).

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Fork said:


> Yeah, actually I am serious. I think he'll put up Zach Randolph like numbers, but with a lot more assists and a lot fewer mental health issues. 22 and 10? That sounds like a #3 prospect to me.


It depends on where he goes. On a crap team where he'd be expected to carry a lot of the scoriung burden, I could see 22/10. On a contending team, like the Blazers, he wouln't be the focus of the offense, will get fewer shots and play fewer minutes. So, something like 14-15 ppg, 8-9 rpg and a couple assists per game would be very solid for a back-up 4-5 that's getting about 30 MPG.

BNM


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

Love looked pretty bad against Memphis in the tourney when he had to go up against physical and athletic big men. He's going to face the same thing in the NBA.

I'd say Brad Miller type of numbers are a BEST CASE scenario for Kevin.

-Pop


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

I think the Laimbeer analogy is pretty good, though the few inches difference makes a difference. My only question about Love is how badly he played in that game against those long Memphis players. But if he is not going to play center, that helps him.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

SodaPopinski said:


> Love looked pretty bad against Memphis in the tourney when he had to go up against physical and athletic big men. He's going to face the same thing in the NBA.
> 
> I'd say Brad Miller type of numbers are a BEST CASE scenario for Kevin.
> 
> -Pop


When evaluating NBA potential, I look at the entire body of work and not just one game. Love played a good schedule and in the Pac 10 played against multiple big men who are projected to be 1st round picks - and he was still 1st team all-american and Pac-10 player of the years (only the 2nd freshman to win that award).

Besides, in the NBA he'll play the 4, not the center like he did in college. I think that's his best natural position and a better match for his skill set.

BTW, Brad Miller was a two time all-star with career best averages of 15.6ppg, 10.3 rpg and 4.7apg. That's not superstar numbers, but it's not too shabby - and he did that on a winning team, that ALMOST made the NBA finals, where he was the 4th option on offense. And, I think Love will be better, over longer period of time, than Miller was. It took Miller several years to reach that level, and by then he was already in his late 20s. Love, definitely, has a more developed game, at a younger age, coming into the league than Miller had.

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Stevenson said:


> I think the Laimbeer analogy is pretty good, though the few inches difference makes a difference. My only question about Love is how badly he played in that game against those long Memphis players. But if he is not going to play center, that helps him.


Which is why Laimbeer was a center and why Love will be a power forward (and the difference is really only about an inch).

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

B_&_B said:


> I'm waiting for a report that we are after Malik Hairston from Oregon. :biggrin:
> 
> GO BEAVS! :cheers:



If Jones leaves and Webster or Outlaw is traded, I would like to see the Blazers take a second round flier on Hairston. He can shoot well enough to spread the floor, and is an above average ball-handler for a SF.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

I agree. Love will have a productive NBA career and might make an all-star game or two. Not a super-star - but a worthy selection in the upper half of the lottery.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

andalusian said:


> I agree. Love will have a productive NBA career and might make an all-star game or two. Not a super-star - but a worthy selection in the upper half of the lottery.


I think he'll either be "the man" and put up big numbers on a crap team, or be a GREAT role player and a very valuable contributor on a championship team. He has the skill set to be either. It just depends on where he ends up.

BNM


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

The talk about Love is kinda funny.

Love is basically Zach, with better passing and a bigger ego. If fans hated on Zach for his weak defense and inability to run the floor, why would they like Love? :thinking2:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm amazed at how many people are drinking the Kevin Love kool-aid, unless Stan Love posts under several aliases on this board.

Stan - is that you? Put down the Wild Turkey Bourbon.

-Pop


----------



## Dessakill (Jun 24, 2007)

World B. Free said:


> Smoke screens baby. We want Mayo.


QFT.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The talk about Love is kinda funny.
> 
> Love is basically Zach, with better passing and a bigger ego. If fans hated on Zach for his weak defense and inability to run the floor, why would they like Love? :thinking2:


Let's see... Love is a MUCH better passer than Zach. He has a much higher basketball (and general) IQ. He is a winner. He could have put up bigger scoring numbers at UCLA, but he didn't pad his stats, he played to win (in other words, the exact opposite of Zach). For a guy who was Pac-10 player of the year and 1st team all-american, Love took surprisingly few shots (only 10.4 FGA/G). He may have a big ego, but he's not a selfish player. He already has better range on his shot than Zach ever will. And, he's never been arrested, or a "person of interest" in any police investigation.

But other than that, yeah, he's just like Zach.

I don't know if he'll score as much as Zach (it depends on where he ends up), but there is no doubt in my mind he'll be a better player and will help his team win more games.

BNM


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Talkhard said:


> Kevin Love suffers from the white man syndrome. No matter how good he is, people look at him and think, "Oh, another white stiff." If he turns out to be a stud, there are going to be a lot of people with egg on their face.


Its not that he is white its the fact that he is white *and a bit chubby*. If he was built like and could dunk like David Lee he would be top four no question.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> Some unfortunate NBA team is going to be very disappointed in Kevin Love in a few years. I sincerely hope it isn't us.
> 
> -Pop



I agree. Love has a good head for the game, but he's less athletic than Zach (if that's even possible) and lacks Zach's tenacity. On the other hand, unlike Zach, he understands the word p-a-s-s.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> I agree. Love has a good head for the game, but he's less athletic than Zach (if that's even possible) and lacks Zach's tenacity. On the other hand, unlike Zach, he understands the word p-a-s-s.


I am not sure that Love is less athletic than Zach. For crying out loud - the man had the same vertical as Beasley - I do not see people calling Beasley un-athletic...


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

It is sad that Portland may need to move up for Westbrook, but he is the perfect fit none the less.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> The talk about Love is kinda funny.
> 
> Love is basically Zach, with better passing and a bigger ego. If fans hated on Zach for his weak defense and inability to run the floor, why would they like Love? :thinking2:


You fail to mention one quality. Team play. Love is a team player, he makes guys around him better. Zbo does not, he makes them worse. As for defense, there is a differenc as well between trying and not trying. Last but not least, Zbo didn't have an inability to run the floor. Zbo refused to run the floor. There is a big difference.


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

hasoos said:


> You fail to mention one quality. Team play. Love is a team player, he makes guys around him better. Zbo does not, he makes them worse. As for defense, there is a differenc as well between trying and not trying. Last but not least, Zbo didn't have an inability to run the floor. Zbo refused to run the floor. There is a big difference.


Didnt Zbo get knocked out of the same round in the big dance?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

2k said:


> Didnt Zbo get knocked out of the same round in the big dance?


He did. But if I remember right, Zbo didn't even start for that team. I can't remember now though. Burned too many brain cells with the Oregon Green. :afro:


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

hasoos said:


> He did. But if I remember right, Zbo didn't even start for that team. I can't remember now though. Burned too many brain cells with the Oregon Green. :afro:


Zach was sixth man for MSU.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I am not sure that Love is less athletic than Zach. For crying out loud - the man had the same vertical as Beasley - I do not see people calling Beasley un-athletic...


He doesn't play athletically. He plays low to the ground... which is smart in terms of conserving energy but rarely works in the NBA.

Luke Jackson's athleticism was questioned, and then he tested like a high-end athlete, and then he played unathletically.

Combine results are not useless, but they, in and of themselves, don't overcome the way a player actually plays.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

2k said:


> Its not that he is white its the fact that he is white *and a bit chubby*. If he was built like and could dunk like David Lee he would be top four no question.


While Love's physique certianly lacks definition and tone, he tested out pretty darn good at the pre-draft camp and didn't seem to have any trouuble dunking while playing at UCLA. Just for grins, here's how his physicals stack up against David Lee's:


```
Height    Height                   Standing  Body  No Step  Max  Bench    Lane  3/4 Court
        w/o Shoes  w/shoes  Weight  Wingspan  Reach    Fat    Vert   Vert  Press  Agility  Sprint 
Kevin Love 6' 7.75" 6' 9.5"  255  6' 11.25"  8' 10"   12.9   29.5   35.0    18     11.17   3.22 
David Lee  6' 7.75" 6' 9"    230  7' 0"      8' 10.5" NA     30.5   32.5    14     10.80   3.19
```
Not too bad for a chubby white guy. Actually, his numbers are excellent for a big man and better than average in all regards for his entire draft class. Lee's numbers are exceptional and no one questions his athleticism. Love's aren't that far behind (he's stronger and has a better max. vertical).

I don't think the Blazers are targeting Love, but imagine what Boby Medina could do with him. He's turned LaMarcus Aldridge and Greg Oden into work out monsters. Toss Love in the same wqeight room with those two guys pushing him and Medina instructing him, and I thinks he'd shed a few pounds and his unathletic image in no time.

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> He doesn't play athletically. He plays low to the ground... which is smart in terms of conserving energy but rarely works in the NBA.


Surely you do not expect me to believe that Zach Randolph is a high flying above the rim athletic playing player... 

Zach plays physical, banging, good footwork game in the NBA and he does it below the rim, just like Love does. Love also tries to play the same on defense - something that is hard to accuse Zach of doing.

I am standing by my original comment - I am not buying the idea that Love is or plays a less athletic game than Randolph.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

andalusian said:


> I am standing by my original comment - I am not buying the idea that Love is or plays a less athletic game than Randolph.


Stand by it all you want, but comparing Love to Beasely as an athlete shows that you either don't understand how athleticism and testing relate or you're ignoring that to make the point of comparison to Zach.

Ed O.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BTW, I don't think the Blazers are targeting Love. I was just trying to envision how he would fit in if they did acquire him. Turns out, he'd fit pretty darn well. He has skills that compliment both Oden and Aldridge and would allow the Blazers to trade Joel or Channing (or possibly both) to acquire another piece. I don't think it will happen, but would not be disappointed if it did. In addition to his skills and basketball IQ, I like Love's competitiveness and fire. He's not afraid of physical play (thrives on it actually). 

Adding Oden AND Love to our front court would silence all the talk we heard last season about the Blazers being a soft team. It would also greatly improve our rebounding. We'll get a lot of that from Oden anyway, but even more if we added Love. I wouldn't mind getting him, but it all depends on what we'd have to give up, or pass up, to do so. 

BNM


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Stand by it all you want, but comparing Love to Beasely as an athlete shows that you either don't understand how athleticism and testing relate or you're ignoring that to make the point of comparison to Zach.
> 
> Ed O.


I agree, but there's something else you can't ignore, and that's skill. Kevin Love has a very well developed, well rounded game. He's got good low post moves and he's a great rebounder. That's where the similarities to Zach end. Love is also an great passer - not only does he see the court and find the open man, he's willing to give up the ball to a teammate who has a better scoring opportunity. He's also got excellent range on his shot.

You can be a very effective player in the NBA and not be a great athlete. Rather than throw out the obilgatory white guy comparison, I'll toss out the name Carlos Boozer. He's a player with similar size and even less athleticsim than Kevin Love. They play the same position and are both big men who don't rely on their athleticism. Boozer seems to be having a pretty good career, and Love is a better passer and has better range on his shot. A lot of GMs passed on Boozer because of his lack of athleticism. I bet most of them wish they hadn't

On the other hand, if you're a great athlete, but lack skills and/or intelligence (Qyntel Woods) you won't be an effective player in the NBA.

Comparing Kevin Love to Luke Jackson is silly. Totally diferent players that play different positions. Yeah, they're both white guys with Oregon ties. That's where the similarities end. 

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> I agree, but there's something else you can't ignore, and that's skill.
> 
> ...
> 
> Comparing Kevin Love to Luke Jackson is silly. Totally diferent players that play different positions. Yeah, they're both white guys with Oregon ties. That's where the similarities end.


Actually, you CAN ignore it. And comparing the two IS fair.

Why? 

Because I'm not talking about them as players. I'm not talking about Love (who I think would be a great addition to the Blazers) as an overall prospect.

I'm talking about athleticism and combine results. Jackson didn't play athletically at UO and he tested well. Love didn't play athletically at UCLA and he tested well. I believe that the tests, rather than their collegiate careers, are false readings of how athletic that these guys are.

Ed O.


----------



## Dessakill (Jun 24, 2007)

I've seen A LOT of Boozer, and to say he plays with little athleticism is a question to me.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Stand by it all you want, but comparing Love to Beasely as an athlete shows that you either don't understand how athleticism and testing relate or you're ignoring that to make the point of comparison to Zach.


I am sorry, but this is BS, imho.

Brandon Roy plays a lot less athletic than what he is capable of - you do not see him dunking on everyone all the time - he uses his athleticism sparingly and when it matters and utilizes it for body control and lateral agility over jumping ability (which he has in spades as well) - and that's what makes him so effective. The same is going to be true for Love in his position - he plays below the rim, like Zach Randolph does - but he has the athletic ability to do more - as was shown by his max vertical being as high as Beasley. He uses his superior strength to get position for rebounds, he uses his foot work and body control to get easy shots - even if they are not above the rim.

My original comment was that Love is not less athletic than Zach Randolph and he does not play less athletically than him either and I still fail to see how anyone can compare the way Beasley plays as proof that Zach is more athletic than Love.


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Surely you do not expect me to believe that Zach Randolph is a high flying above the rim athletic playing player...
> 
> Zach plays physical, banging, good footwork game in the NBA and he does it below the rim, just like Love does. Love also tries to play the same on defense - something that is hard to accuse Zach of doing.
> 
> I am standing by my original comment - I am not buying the idea that Love is or plays a less athletic game than Randolph.


Stop calling Ed "Shirley".


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I'm torn both ways on Love.

If we did pick him I wouldn't want it to be with a top 10 pick, mainly because I don't think he'd be anything more than a role player with the Blazers. He has great skills that most big men don't have like; outlet passing, the ability to shoot outside and a great ability to find open teammates. But I question how well he's going to be able to rebound and have much of a post up game when most players at his position are much longer than he is. It seems like at UCLA he would get his points, but he would have to work so hard to get them. He's going to have to work even harder for them in the NBA. What he does have going for him though is those broad shoulders that create space.

From what I've heard from people that are familiar with the Love family, they think that Kevin is God's gift to Earth. I'm not sure how he'd respond to being a bench player. I listened to Canzano interview Stan Love the other day, it became apparent that his dad thinks he's the best player in the draft. They talked about how Stan would yell at the referees almost to point of getting kicked out of games and how Stan felt that Kevin didn't get to showcase his whole skill set, because Howland lied to him about what his role would be.

The kid was 1st team All America as Freshman and in the Final Four, what else did you expect Stan?


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Actually, you CAN ignore it. And comparing the two IS fair.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


OK, fine. But, I still think comparing Kevin Love and Luke Jackson, even in the context you preseneted, is silly. Jackson plays a position where athleticism is very important in the NBA. There just aren't a lot of unathletic shooting guards in the NBA (at least not many good ones). While Jackson test well at the pre-draft combine, his athleicism doesn't translate into his play. As an shooting guard in the NBA he is very physically overmatched by the other athletes that play his position. He can't guard anybody and has trouble getting his shot off.

Love will be a power forward in the NBA. He has the size, strength and skills to succeed at that position - even if the athleticism he showed at the pre-draft camp doesn't manifest itself in the way he plays the game. Strength, agressiveness, positioning and footwork are important in an NBA power forward. Love has those. He's a wide-body banger with good low post moves who hits the glass hard, has good range on his shot, is a good passer and a good team player. He has the skills to be succesful at his position even if he doesn't play athletically. Luke Jackson doesn't.

BNM


----------



## BLAZER PROPHET (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually, I think Ed's point was very well taken. Both those two players test out well, but are not athletes on the floor. That's not uncommon. They both play well below the athletic level of their position. That's substantially worse in the NBA than NCAA or HS.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> But I question how well he's going to be able to rebound and have much of a post up game when most players at his position are much longer than he is.


Desire is the single most important factor in being a great rebounding. To be a great rebounder, you really have to *WANT* to be a great rebounder. If you've ever seen Love play in person you know he gets after it. He battles for position and fights for rebounds. His wide frame and low center of gravity (aka: fat azz) help him box out and hold his position.

A good post-up game depends more on good foot work and a good shoting touch more than quickness and athleticism. If you are a great athlete AND have great footwork, you'll be unstoppable, but there have been plenty of great low post scores who weren't great athletes. Tim Duncan and Kevin McHale come to mind. Zach, for all his other flaws, is a good low post scorer. He's undersized for his position and not a great athlete. Yet, he's still an effective low post scorer. Combine Love's excellent footwork, his court vision and his shooting touch and I think he'll be able to score in the NBA, even against bigger, more athletic players.



zagsfan20 said:


> It seems like at UCLA he would get his points, but he would have to work so hard to get them. He's going to have to work even harder for them in the NBA.


If it looked like he was working hard at UCLA to get his points, that because he ALWAYS works hard. He is a very aggressive, very competitive player. He is also an efficient scorer. He averaged 17.5 PPG on only 10.4 FGA/g. That comes out to an outstanding 1.68 PPS (points per shot). He also gets to the lone a lot. He's very agressive offensively and knows how to get defenders off their feet to draw the foul.



zagsfan20 said:


> From what I've heard from people that are familiar with the Love family, they think that Kevin is God's gift to Earth. I'm not sure how he'd respond to being a bench player. I listened to Canzano interview Stan Love the other day, it became apparent that his dad thinks he's the best player in the draft. They talked about how Stan would yell at the referees almost to point of getting kicked out of games and how Stan felt that Kevin didn't get to showcase his whole skill set, because Howland lied to him about what his role would be.


By all acounts his dad is a total tool. Still, in spite of his dad's *****ing, Kevin accpeted his role at UCLA and was a great team player. He didn't dominate the ball, didn't try to be "the man". He played within his coach's system, enjoyed team success and was named a 1st team all-american. I'm sure he has a big ego and a bit of an attitude, but he's not a total jerk like his old man. His coach and teammates at UCLA liked him, and where it counts, on the court, he was a good team player.

Again, I don't think the Blazers are targeting him, but if Love did end up a Blazer, his old man yelling at the refs and coaches would probably be the biggest negative. But if his son is producing, who cares. And if the team is winning (which they will be doing, with or without Love), the building will be sold out and you won't be able to hear Stan Love above the rest of the crowd anyway. I would hate to be the guy who ends up with season tickets next to him, though.

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BLAZER PROPHET said:


> Actually, I think Ed's point was very well taken. Both those two players test out well, but are not athletes on the floor. That's not uncommon. They both play well below the athletic level of their position. That's substantially worse in the NBA than NCAA or HS.


Thank you. Yes.

I'm NOT saying that Love is doomed to fail. I'm not saying that because Jackson failed that Love will.

I'm just saying that people who think that Love does not play unathletically are fooling themselves.

Ed O.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

Fork said:


> Better yet, CJ Giles from Oregon State.
> 
> But seriously, I'm shocked that Love hasn't been mentioned more often. I truly believe that he's the 3rd best prospect in this draft. *He's undersized and underathletic*, but he's skilled enough to make a real impact in the league.


Is he though? He measured a 35" vertical at the NBA pre-draft camp, which is the same as Michael Beasley, and his shuttle times were better than many players smaller than him.

I think he is considered "underathletic" solely because he is white.

http://www.draftexpress.com/article...-Measurements,-Combine-Results-Released-2911/


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> Thank you. Yes.
> 
> I'm NOT saying that Love is doomed to fail. I'm not saying that because Jackson failed that Love will.
> 
> ...


But, Jackson plays a position where playing athletically is pretty much a requirement for success. Love doesn't. So, it's an applesranges comparison.

I'd rather see Kevin Love banging bodies in the paint, boxing out and drawing fouls than soaring above the rim and beating his man with a killer crossover.

I think we're actually in agreement here. I agree with your point that Love doesn't play athletically. He's more the protypical wide-body banger than the high flying gazelle. And that's fine. Combined with his skill set (good shooting touch, good footwork, good court vision, willing and capable passer, aggressive rebounder, etc.), I think will allow him to see continued success at the next level. Not superstardom, but he won't be a bust either.

So yes, Love doesn't play athletically, but I don't think he needs to to be effective. His game isn't predicated on athleticism and there have been plenty of other players at his position that didn't play athletically who had very successful careers.

Semi-related question: Who was the last unathletic shooting guard to have a successful career? I'm going to go with Jeff Hornacek. Any others? I can't think of any current starters that fit that description (a few 7th, 8th, or 9th men, but no starters).

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Boob-No-More said:


> But, Jackson plays a position where playing athletically is pretty much a requirement for success. Love doesn't. So, it's an applesranges comparison.


No it's not. My comparison has nothing to do with position. 

How many times do I have to say that I am NOT arguing that athleticism is good or bad relative to productivity? I'm not touching upon that at ALL here.

All I'm doing is comparing how a player plays to how he tests. That you keep dragging in other things and blaming ME for the example I used to make my point is your failing, not mine.

Ed O.


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

PapaG said:


> Is he though? He measured a 35" vertical at the NBA pre-draft camp, which is the same as Michael Beasley, and his shuttle times were better than many players smaller than him.
> 
> I think he is considered "underathletic" solely because he is white.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/article...-Measurements,-Combine-Results-Released-2911/


I agree with this. Love's stats at the pre-draft camp indicate he's much more athletic than many believe. He's white and his body-fat percentage is higher than many other players. That's the reason he gets the "unathletic" tag in my opinion.


----------

