# notes on Aldridge from csmn (thursday)



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

They said that although Aldridge thinks he is about ready to return, Jay Jenson and other in the organization think that the origional time frame offered still stands, meaning LaMarcus will be out for another 3 weeks or so. Also, one of the csmn people said they think LaMarcus will be in the running for ROY, that he is not years away, but months away from making an impact.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I haven't yet figured out who, outside of yahoos on forums, has said that Aldridge was years away from contributing...He went for, what 15 and 9 on a team trhat was top 3-4 all year long.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Nate McVillain said:


> They said that although Aldridge thinks he is about ready to return, Jay Jenson and other in the organization think that the origional time frame offered still stands, meaning LaMarcus will be out for another 3 weeks or so. Also, one of the csmn people said they think LaMarcus will be in the running for ROY, that he is not years away, but months away from making an impact.


Was that CSTN person Mike Rice? Aldridge is gonna have to get on the court first. And by that I mean he's going to have share minutes with Zach/Joel/Raef/Magloire and even Travis apparantly. He won't be considered as ROY if he is limited to backing up Zach for 10 minutes a game. 

OTOH, if Aldridge starts playing at a ROY level the only players who should be ahead of him are Zach and Joel, even if Magloire puts it in gear.

The only way I can imagine Aldridge in the running for ROY is if there's a trade a brewin' on the Blazers. But -- isn't there always? :biggrin:


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I haven't yet figured out who, outside of yahoos on forums, has said that Aldridge was years away from contributing...He went for, what 15 and 9 on a team trhat was top 3-4 all year long.


I'm your huckleberry. :biggrin:


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

BBert said:


> Was that CSTN person Mike Rice? Aldridge is gonna have to get on the court first. And by that I mean he's going to have share minutes with Zach/Joel/Raef/Magloire and even Travis apparantly. He won't be considered as ROY if he is limited to backing up Zach for 10 minutes a game. OTOH, if Aldridge starts playing at a ROY level the only players who should be ahead of him are Zach and Joel, even if Magloire puts it in gear.
> 
> The only way I can imagine Aldridge in the running for ROY is if there's a trade a brewin' on the Blazers. But -- isn't there always? :biggrin:


I was doing dishes while they were talking so I dont know who said it. Sounds like something Rice or MB might say. 

I agree that the biggest issue in the way of LA making a run at ROY is getting getting minutes. If he really shows that he is going to be great, I could see him getting 25 min per game split 15 at PF and 10 at C.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> I could see him getting 25 min per game split 15 at PF and 10 at C.


And I could see us losing each and every game.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I haven't yet figured out who, outside of yahoos on forums, has said that Aldridge was years away from contributing...He went for, what 15 and 9 on a team trhat was top 3-4 all year long.


15 and 9 is not amazing numbers for a college player. I mean, I could think of quite a few NBA scrubs who averaged that much in college, or maybe even more. Heck, Mark Madsen averaged 13 and 9 on a Stanford team that made it to the Final Four.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

I was listening, and it was indeed Rice that said that.

While Rice is about as reliable as Peter Vescey, I agree that Aldridge might be ready to do something this year. If he came into the league a few years ago, LaMarcus may have had more problems, but this guy runs the floor about as fast as a small forward. If his shot is working, he could allow Nate to play his half court offense while the other team attempts the fast break style. 

That's the flexibility that KP was talking about.


----------



## ProudBFan (Apr 29, 2003)

Im just having a hard time imagining Aldridge making a serious run at Rookie of the Year. I would love to have *legit* ROY contenders on the roster. I really would. Many of you probably remember me harping on the Blazers need for STAR POWER late last season / early summer. But I just havent seen enough of Aldridge yet to feel comfortable telling people hes a legit ROY contender.

PBF


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

ProudBFan said:


> Im just having a hard time imagining Aldridge making a serious run at Rookie of the Year. I would love to have *legit* ROY contenders on the roster. I really would. Many of you probably remember me harping on the Blazers need for STAR POWER late last season / early summer. But I just havent seen enough of Aldridge yet to feel comfortable telling people hes a legit ROY contender.


I don't think he's a ROY contender, but if he gains a lot of confidence *really fast* who knows? 

I was at summer league and he had a surprising arsenal of post moves. He had a nice looking jumper, a hook shot and a Sheed-like soft touch around the basket. He wasn't hitting them at a high percentage in some of the games, but in others he was. I think that polish will come in the next few years, but who knows... if Magloire keeps up his turnover-prone ways or an injury befalls the frontline, LA might be thrust into that spotlight right away.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think he's years away simply because of the people in front of him on the roster.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> 15 and 9 is not amazing numbers for a college player. I mean, I could think of quite a few NBA scrubs who averaged that much in college, or maybe even more. Heck, Mark Madsen averaged 13 and 9 on a Stanford team that made it to the Final Four.



While I agree 100% with you about his numbers not being outstanding, you have to take into account that 3 of the Texas players were drafted, and another was invited to a training camp. It was also a guard oriented offense. It's not like he was the only guy on that team with any talent, he was the one with the most talent.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I think he's years away simply because of the people in front of him on the roster.


Aldridge has more pure talent than anyone in front of him. We have no Sabonis, Grant or Sheed ahead of Lamarcus on the depth chart. He will play when he's ready, which should be around Jan 1.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

MARIS61 said:


> And I could see us losing each and every game.


l

They are probably going to lose those games anyhow, so its not like your "Basketball Nostradamus" here. Blaming Lemarcus Aldridge when he hasn't played a minute on the court is pretty weak. 

Having Lemarcus and Zbo on the floor on the front line at the same time would be a lot of firepower on the front line, and work towards the team improving for the future, which is the goal is it not? Do you want to be snivelling about how bad the Blazers are forever or do you want them to improve to the point where they can kick the teeth in on a high percentage of the nights they play?


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Schilly said:


> I haven't yet figured out who, outside of yahoos on forums, has said that Aldridge was years away from contributing...He went for, what 15 and 9 on a team trhat was top 3-4 all year long.


I thought the knock on him was he was going to need to put on some weight so it would take him a couple years to really contribute? Since his injury is upper body I doubt he's put on much weight so far.

Maybe they think he'll get ROY playing SF?


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I see it as doubtful (Aldridge ROY), too many bodies in front of him with experience. Most rookies in contention for ROY play significant minutes.

What is really exciting is that IF he's as good a projected, it makes trading someone in front of him possible.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

I don't think it's the players in front of him, I think it's the fact he needs to pack on the pounds (while maintaining his gazelle like speed).

That's going to take at least one year. Look for him, if anything, to make a run for sophomore of the year.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Nate McVillain said:


> he is not years away, but months away from making an impact.



If he is "months away" from even making an impact, than how can he be ROY? Look, the guy is hurt, he is buried deep in the bench, even if we free it up with a trade, and he is woefully understrengthed for the NBA game-as of now. 

He was drafted more on the "P" word than on his college numbers, as many have pointed out, 15 & 9 won't set the world on fire. 

Get healthy, get some minutes, get some strength. I doubt he can string all that together for most of this season.....unless it is in Forth Worth or ANaheim.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Aldridge will not be in the running for ROY honors, but he definitely will earn playing time this season when his shoulder is healthy. He's going to be a very good player, I'm convinced of that. He's already a great shot-blocker and he already runs the court very well. He just needs a little more strength training.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

tlong said:


> Aldridge will not be in the running for ROY honors, but he definitely will earn playing time this season when his shoulder is healthy. He's going to be a very good player, I'm convinced of that. He's already a great shot-blocker and he already runs the court very well. He just needs a little more strength training.




Agreed. Aldridge is already a good shot blocker, passer, and has a great shooting touch out to 16 ft or so. He also runs the floor well and is a smart player. The only thing he is lacking is strength to take advantage of the sky hook he has developed.


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Agreed. Aldridge is already a good shot blocker, passer, and has a great shooting touch out to 16 ft or so. He also runs the floor well and is a smart player. The only thing he is lacking is strength to take advantage of the sky hook he has developed.


As I said in another thread about Zack, in a similar way with the new rule changes Aldridge has a good chance of being very good this year as he will get to the line a lot and he *will* get his shot off.

gatopops


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> 15 and 9 is not amazing numbers for a college player. I mean, I could think of quite a few NBA scrubs who averaged that much in college, or maybe even more. Heck, Mark Madsen averaged 13 and 9 on a Stanford team that made it to the Final Four.


I don't really follow college ball, but didn't he also win the college equivalent of DPOY? What kind of success record do players with that award have in the NBA? (These aren't loaded questions, I really have no idea).


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

If you looks at LA's stats in college, game-by-game, some things stand out. First, he played along side another 9+ rebound/game guy--so that would naturally reduce his opportunities a little. Second, most of his low rebounding games were from foul trouble. If you could have kept him out of foul trouble, then he probably gets one or two more boards a game on average.

I don't think there is any way for him to be ROY this year, as I think Brandon will run away with it, given the minutes he will get. But, LA could end up being a big asset this year, and the team's leading rebounder next year.


----------



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

yakbladder said:


> I don't think it's the players in front of him, I think it's the fact he needs to pack on the pounds (while maintaining his gazelle like speed).





mgb said:


> I thought the knock on him was he was going to need to put on some weight so it would take him a couple years to really contribute? Since his injury is upper body I doubt he's put on much weight so far.


Aldridge is listed as 6'11" 245 on the Blazers web site. Rasheed Wallace is 6'11" 230. Chris Bosh is 6'10" 230. Exactly how much weight do we want LaMarcus to pack on? While I would like to see him do some strength exercises, I'd hate for him to put on too much bulk at the cost of his ability to run the floor. It's a built-in advantage he has over most other players his size. Not everyone is meant to be a Shaq. There are, and have always been, some very lean big men who have/had very successful NBA careers. In addition to Sheed and Bosh, Kevin Garnett and David Robinson come to mind. I see LaMarcus having both a very similar build and a similar skill set to these guys - and that's the type of player I want him to become. Why try to make him somehing he's not at the expense of his natural abilities?

BNM


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

I agree BNM... while I think he should improve his strength as he develops his game, I don't see that he needs to "pack on pounds" or greatly increase his strength before being able to make a significant contribution.

Perhaps he needs X amount of muscle or strength added to become an elite player, but to make a solid contribution to a weak team - I don't think so...


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

His problem isn't his weight, its that he can only bench press 75% of his body weight 6 times. I don't know if you guys know much about weights, but I will tell you: that isn't good. It is especially not good for a guy that will be asked to utilize his strength. 

It is hard for NBA guys to ever be terribly strong becuse of their long arms, but he should be at absolute minimum be benching 185 for 13 or 14 reps.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

LaMarcus was listed at around 230lbs at the draft. He's reportedly been working hard with the trainers since then and I had heard that they already put about 15 pounds of muscle on him just over the summer -- mostly focusing on lower body work -- so 245lbs sounds about right. The primary focus is to strengthen his lower body and balance so he can hold post position down low. The last thing they would want would be to bulk him up like a lineman and take away his true talents. Any weight he puts on will be lean muscle. His shoulder surgery shouldn't be slowing down his basic strength development any and his arm and shoulder strength should come along just fine. You don't hold guys like Magloire or Zach out of the paint with your arms, or establish and hold post position with your arms, anyway.

It isn't just Mike Rice -- The Blazers supposedly thought he was the clear no. 1 pick in the draft for them. I trust that assessment. If that assessment is true, I don't see any reason why he couldn't be productive within a month of coming back. 

Aldridge should be the No. 1 backup for Zach very soon. The Blazers projected him to be a PF for the first year or two, then depending on how he fills out, possibly moving to center after that. Barring injury to our centers, it's going to be tough to get him center minutes this year -- if the Blazers even want him to -- unless (until) we make a trade. Maybe the second half of the season?


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> I don't think it's the players in front of him, I think it's the fact he needs to pack on the pounds (while maintaining his gazelle like speed).


Let's say pronghorn-like speed instead. We're in the west, it sounds better (fastest land mammal in the world, baby!).


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

SLAM said:


> Let's say pronghorn-like speed instead. We're in the west, it sounds better (fastest land mammal in the world, baby!).


I thought cheetahs were the fastest land mammal in the world?


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

BBert said:


> Any weight he puts on will be lean muscle. His shoulder surgery shouldn't be slowing down his basic strength development any and his arm and shoulder strength should come along just fine.


Yes, lean muscle is what he needs. Bulk does not neccesarily equate to strength. Is his shoulder surgery slowing down his strength development? You bet it is. It is ridiculous to think it isn't.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> His problem isn't his weight, its that he can only bench press 75% of his body weight 6 times. I don't know if you guys know much about weights, but I will tell you: that isn't good. It is especially not good for a guy that will be asked to utilize his strength.
> 
> It is hard for NBA guys to ever be terribly strong becuse of their long arms, but he should be at absolute minimum be benching 185 for 13 or 14 reps.




Yes you are correct. What he needs is strength, not weight. In college he was told to focus on quickness and speed.....which he has a lot of for his size. Once the Blazers staff gets some muscle on him he will be tough.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> His problem isn't his weight, its that he can only bench press 75% of his body weight 6 times. I don't know if you guys know much about weights, but I will tell you: that isn't good. It is especially not good for a guy that will be asked to utilize his strength.
> 
> It is hard for NBA guys to ever be terribly strong becuse of their long arms, but he should be at absolute minimum be benching 185 for 13 or 14 reps.



Sure. But how long does it take somebody to reach that point? If you have never worked weights much, it doesn't take long to get a lot stronger, and do it in a way that doesn't throw his game off by gaining too much weight or throwing his shot off by increase the strength too fast. If he works out a lot, he will be in fine shape by the end of the year, and you will know because his minutes will go up. I expect like Chris Bosh, that his second year is the one where he will actually show up with a full NBA ready body, because almost all rookies do not know what it takes to be in NBA shape.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

hasoos said:


> Sure. But how long does it take somebody to reach that point?


It depends, in all actuality, if you have a wingspan of seven feet..it will probably take a minimum of a year.



> his second year is the one where he will actually show up with a full NBA ready body .


This probably will hold true.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> Yes, lean muscle is what he needs. Bulk does not neccesarily equate to strength. Is his shoulder surgery slowing down his strength development? You bet it is. It is ridiculous to think it isn't.


Of course you are right, his upper body strength development surely has been slowed by his surgery. But he has had the opportunity to focus on his core strength -- his abs and lower back and hips and glutes and legs and the rest. That's a good thing. And they probably still had him doing some isolation exercises for his arms and such that didn't aggravate his shoulder. If he thinks he's close to coming back, that means they are working his upper body now. I'm not worried about it (as you can tell). I expect he'll be backing up Zach soon and doing as well as the other top rookies before the end of the year. 

Speaking of which, has anybody seen Bargnani play? I caught some of the Toronto game the other day and OMG that guy is going to be good. He's the size of a center, with the game of a SF. He's raw, he has a ways to go, but he definitely has some skills.

I can't wait to see Aldridge and Bargnani match up! :banana:


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> He was drafted more on the "P" word than on his college numbers, as many have pointed out, 15 & 9 won't set the world on fire.


Little nitpik. No 15 & 9 won't set the world on fire.

But, if LA averaged that, along with some decent defense and the blocks you would expect to go with it, he would very much be in the running for ROY.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Masbee said:


> .
> 
> But, if LA averaged that, along with some decent defense and the blocks you would expect to go with it, he would very much be in the running for ROY.


If's and buts are candy and nuts.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> If's and buts are candy and nuts.


and adam is shooting a lot better. 

jk OCH.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

One indication we got of how NBA-ready Alridge is would be his summer league performance. In Vegas, he put up these stats:

5 GP, 33.0 min, 11.6 ppg, 47.9% FG, 6.6 rbs, 2.2 ast (tied for best among big men), 1.0 stl, 1.8 blks.

Now, of course VSL isn't the same as the NBA, but empirically, that's about the best measure of NBA-readiness that we have. Guys who are younger and less experienced will often have a steeper learning curve, but Aldridge would have quite a ways to go before he is even considered in the ROY race. By most accounts his body was not ready, his game isn't as developed as some other rookies, and then he went and got hurt and missed training camp.

I'll call it right now: No way he contends for ROY. He won't even be in the top 5 of the vote. I'm still happy with the pick, but we're going to have to wait some time before he becomes a starting caliber NBA player. This year, I just hope that he steps up enough in practice in the second half to make Nate give him some of Raef's and Magloire's minutes. I don't expect we're going to get more than a small taste this year of what his complete developed game will eventually become.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Fine. Strength, not weight. I didn't mean for him to literally pack on pounds of fat. I meant add pounds of muscle, lose pounds of fat. I thought that was obvious. It's not like I'm speaking to Shawn Kemp here, I'd expect y'all to get it. :biggrin:


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

It seems a stretch to me to expect he'll compete for ROY, given his injury.

But who cares? We've already got a Roy that will compete for ROY, and it's not like another ROY candidate this year would have catapulted us into the playoffs and/or to bigger and better things.

Aldridge just needs to get healthy and get some experience and give the Blazers an idea of what he's capable of. Long term, he'll make an impact, irrespective of whether he sets the world on fire as a rookie or not.

Ed O.


----------



## SLAM (Jan 1, 2003)

tlong said:


> I thought cheetahs were the fastest land mammal in the world?


Hmm. I guess it's a little subjective. Do we call the 100m, 200m, or 400m sprinter/runner the fastest man in the world? Cheetah gets the top speed (about 60, I think), but can only keep it up for a short stretch. Pronghorns can get close to cheetah speeds, but they can maintain it for much longer.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> and adam is shooting a lot better.
> 
> jk OCH.


Last night against Milwaukee he was 8/15 with 18 points.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> If's and buts are candy and nuts.


Cute, but completely stupid.

YOU said 15 & 9 is unimpressive.

I am not predicting any averages for LA. Thus no "if's and buts" issued on my part.

YOUR statement is wrong. Get it?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Last night against Milwaukee he was 8/15 with 18 points.



He also had 3 rebounds and an assist doubling his entire pre season output thus far. :biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> He also had 3 rebounds and an assist doubling his entire pre season output thus far. :biggrin:


Is that really true? Where do you get preseason stats? If that's true, then OUCH!


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> He also had 3 rebounds and an assist doubling his entire pre season output thus far. :biggrin:


Meanwhile Softridge is sitting behind the bench in street clothes...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Is that really true? Where do you get preseason stats? If that's true, then OUCH!


Its called exaggeration.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Is that really true? Where do you get preseason stats? If that's true, then OUCH!




No it's not true. Those numbers might be more than his averages though


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> Meanwhile Softridge is sitting behind the bench in street clothes...




And still had as many steals and only one less assist than Morrison. His opposing player didn't light him up either


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> And still had as many steals and only one less assist than Morrison. His opposing player didn't light him up either


I'm sure his chap is getting a nice groove in those seats behind the bench.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Masbee said:


> Cute, but completely stupid.


cute? yes! Completely stupid? No, maybe partially.



> YOU said 15 & 9 is unimpressive.


No I didn't. I said it wouldn't set the world on fire. Fifteen and Nine is quite workmanlike at the collegiate level. 



> I am not predicting any averages for LA. Thus no "if's and buts" issued on my part.


Lets revisit what you did post shall we? 

_"Little nitpik. No 15 & 9 won't set the world on fire.

*But* , *if* LA averaged that, along with some decent defense and the blocks you would expect to go with it, he would very much be in the running for ROY."_




> YOUR statement is wrong. Get it?


So, I don't get it. Please educate me further oh wise one.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> Meanwhile Softridge is sitting behind the bench in street clothes...


I don't think this line of argument really gets you far. I'd rather have a draft pick who is temporarily out of action than one who is busy showing the league that his doubters were mostly right.

It's like when Lady Astor said to Winston Churchill, "Sir, you're drunk!" and Churchill replied, "Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly."


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Is that really true? Where do you get preseason stats? If that's true, then OUCH!


As others have said: not true. But you can see his stats (including game breakdowns) at 
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/adam_morrison/index.html?nav=page

If you took his best stats and combined them into a single game, it would look like this:

8-15 from the field, 2-2 from 3's, 6-6 from the line, 3 offensive boards, 2 defensive rebounds, 4 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 0 TO's, 0 PFs, 24 points (his actual high has been 19, in his first preseason game, but with the combined I gave him the benefit of the doubt ).

His worst would be
3-16 from the field, 0-2 from 3's, 0-2 from the line, 0 boards, 0 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 4 TO's, 4 PF's, 6 points (his actual low was 4 points, but I think 3-16 is worse than 2-11). 

It's amazing that he hasn't pulled down more than 2 defensive rebounds in a game yet, and that he hasn't recorded a single steal or block in 195 minutes. Or maybe it's not amazing. *shrug*

Just for fun, Roy's "best" and "worst" so far:

Best: 
5-8 from the field, 2-5 from 3's, 11-12 from the line, 3 offensive boards, 7 defensive boards, 8 assists, 2 steals, 1 block, 1 TO, 2 PF's, 23 points (real high: 19, twice).

Worst:
3-10 from the field, 0-3 from 3's, 1-5 from the line, 0 rebounds, 2 assists, 0 steals, 0 blocks, 4 turnovers, 6 PF's, 7 points (real low: 8).

Roy HAS played more minutes (242) than Morrison, so whatever value these numbers have is lessened without accounting for that.

Looking at Roy's preseason stats, he's getting into foul trouble a lot. I would be interested to see how many offensive fouls he's received... he got 2 in the game in Seattle iirc. He also hasn't shot the 3 ball well at all (5/21), and hasn't played the passing lanes as well as I'd like (4 steals so far). But that's nitpicking, isn't it?

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> I don't think this line of argument really gets you far. I'd rather have a draft pick who is temporarily out of action than one who is busy showing the league that his doubters were mostly right.
> 
> It's like when Lady Astor said to Winston Churchill, "Sir, you're drunk!" and Churchill replied, "Yes, Madam, I am. But in the morning, I will be sober and you will still be ugly."


I'm not sure anyone's proving their doubters right when they games that he's playing in don't even matter.

As for Aldridge, he should be happy that the NBA plays in arena's, because a good gust of wind would blow him away.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Completely stupid? No, maybe partially.


Partially completely stupid? Completely stupid.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Fork said:


> Partially completely stupid? Completely stupid.



Stick a fork in it. Unless you have pearls of wisdom to add to the thread. No? didn't think so.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm sure his chap is getting a nice groove in those seats behind the bench.




Sort of like that hole Morrison's feet make on the defensive end of the floor.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not sure anyone's proving their doubters right when they games that he's playing in don't even matter.


so a guy who has probably dreamed his entire life of playing in an NBA game finally makes it and decides to coast through his first pre-season because the games "don't even matter"? 

I look at the stats from his 7 games and I only see 1 where he even shoots better than .500. for a guy billed as the best shooter in the draft (and not much else), it's astonishing that any fan of his can be so flippant about his poor shooting performances so far.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> As others have said: not true. But you can see his stats (including game breakdowns) at
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/adam_morrison/index.html?nav=page
> 
> If you took his best stats and combined them into a single game, it would look like this:
> ...



Foul trouble might mean that he's at least attempting to play defense. I seem to remember that Kiki never got into foul trouble either.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mook said:


> so a guy who has probably dreamed his entire life of playing in an NBA game finally makes it and decides to coast through his first pre-season because the games "don't even matter"?
> 
> I look at the stats from his 7 games and I only see 1 where he even shoots better than .500. for a guy billed as the best shooter in the draft (and not much else), it's astonishing that anyone fan of his can be so flippant about his poor shooting performances so far.


Preseason is what it is.

When the real games start thats when we'll see what happens.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> I'm not sure anyone's proving their doubters right when they games that he's playing in don't even matter.
> 
> As for Aldridge, he should be happy that the NBA plays in arena's, because a good gust of wind would blow him away.


 :clap: Ok, I get it. Morrison's you're boy and you're going to defend him no matter what. The people who said that he would have a tough time scoring at the NBA level and be a poor defender and rebounder were in no way vindicated by the fact that Morrison has shot a low FG% and low rb and stl numbers in the preseason because.... because preseason doesn't really count. Sure, why not? I dig it.

....I'm still glad we picked Aldridge though. Too bad we will have to wait a couple years before we really know who the best guys out of this draft are.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

It's interesting that a lot of people compared A_am Morrison to Keith Van Horn before the draft (and a small but vocal minority cried foul over that..."You're just saying that 'cause they're both white! Ammo is better!") But the fact is, I think Keith Van Horn is pretty much the best case scenario for A_am at this point. Van Horn's rookie year, he averaged 19.7 pts, 6.6 rebounds, 1.7 assists and 1.1 steals. I'd be shocked if A_am achieves more than one of those benchmarks for the entire season.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Ed O said:


> As others have said: not true. But you can see his stats (including game breakdowns) at
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/adam_morrison/index.html?nav=page
> 
> If you took his best stats and combined them into a single game, it would look like this:
> ...



Looking at these numbers and other stories from the preseason, it almost seems like all the players from the draft are performing, at least in the preseason, pretty much how they were billed. Were the draft pundits generally right? Morrison is a good scorer (he shoots low FG%, but gets to the line), decent passer but poor everything else ... Roy is an all-around ROY candidate... Bargnani's a good shooter, but wispy and not tough or polished ... TT is raw but uses his athletecism and defense to earn some PT ... Rondo and Williams are at the moment probably the best PGs in the draft, even though they fell a lot ... Gay is also raw, but shows flashes of greatness ...

After seeing summer league and the preseason, have there really been any surprises from this year's rookie class? So far, I can't think of any.


----------



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

zagsfan20 said:


> As for Aldridge, he should be happy that the NBA plays in arena's, because a good gust of wind would blow him away.


You do know Aldridge outweighs Morrison by 40 lbs., don't you? He's already bigger, both taller and heavier, than many successful players who play the same position he'll play in the NBA.

We know you have a man crush on Morrison, but I thought you said you were a Blazers fan. So, why the need to constantly put down Aldridge, a Blazer, in an attempt to make Morrsion, a Bobcat, look "good" by comparison. Why not let Morrison's accomplishments stand on their own?

BNM


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> After seeing summer league and the preseason, have there really been any surprises from this year's rookie class? So far, I can't think of any.


Not any huge surprises, I agree. Rondo seems like he's probably the biggest one, and it's not like (a) he came out of nowhere or (b) he's even earned a starting spot yet.

Of course things might change once games start counting, but it IS odd that players seem to be about what they were advertised to be so far...

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Fork said:


> It's interesting that a lot of people compared A_am Morrison to Keith Van Horn before the draft



Its also funny that many cried foul about Lame-Arcus Wussridge having a reputation for being soft and not showing enough heart, about his toughness, about being a finesse player in a power position. About not being physically imposing, About not being an out of this world leaper, about not being an extremely emotional player, about passing and ball handling needing improvement AND being injury prone. 

Lets hope his comparison won't be Sam Bowie.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Fork said:


> It's interesting that a lot of people compared A_am Morrison to Keith Van Horn before the draft (and a small but vocal minority cried foul over that..."You're just saying that 'cause they're both white! Ammo is better!") But the fact is, I think Keith Van Horn is pretty much the best case scenario for A_am at this point. Van Horn's rookie year, he averaged 19.7 pts, 6.6 rebounds, 1.7 assists and 1.1 steals. I'd be shocked if A_am achieves more than one of those benchmarks for the entire season.


Van Horn wasn't a bad player early in his career. He's not good now, but that I don't think it's an insult to compare Morrison to an early KVH. For some reason, he seemed to peak really early in his career. I don't know if he had injury problems or what, but he's only like 30 and he plays nowhere near his peak right now. Morrison will probably never grab as many boards as KVH, but my guess is that unlike Van Horn, sometime in his career Ammo will break the 20ppg mark (not this year though).


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

i want to make a few comments on aldridge.

first of all, his shoulder problem wont stop him from putting on the weight he needs. he needs to strengthen his lower body to give himself a stronger base so he can play in the post better. his freshman year, he hurt his hip which stopped him from strengthening the lower body. his upper body will be fine until the lower body fills out.

second, he is a very refined offensive player. he is not raw like people seem to think he is when they talk about him needing a few years to contribute. he can shoot with either hand, spin either way, has a good jump hook, and even developed a nice sky hook in college. he is also a good offensive rebounder. people also forget he as a nice face up game. for a guy his size, he good handles and a nice first step. he developed his face up game and outside shot before he was a post player. but with gibson and tucker always having the ball on the perimeter, he was more useful playing in the post then he was using that face up game. 

3rd, is his defense. He isnt a great shot blocker and he wont be a great weakside defender like ben wallace. but he is active on the defensive end using his length to bother players and will try to contest shots. he also uses his length effectively to bother his man in the post. his problem here, again, is his lack of lower body strength. its the reason glen davis gave lamarcus such trouble. 

He is a hard worker, respectful of the coaches and staff, and always willing to learn and improve his game. i expect him to be a poor mans tim duncan.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> His problem isn't his weight, its that he can only bench press 75% of his body weight 6 times. I don't know if you guys know much about weights, but I will tell you: that isn't good. It is especially not good for a guy that will be asked to utilize his strength.
> 
> It is hard for NBA guys to ever be terribly strong becuse of their long arms, but he should be at absolute minimum be benching 185 for 13 or 14 reps.



Like I told you before, someone thats 7 foot and has long arms wont be able to bench nearly as much as someone who's short. There's a long list of players that cant bench much but had great NBA careers. Kareem Abdul Jabar comes to mind.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Pimped Out said:


> i want to make a few comments on aldridge.
> 
> first of all, his shoulder problem wont stop him from putting on the weight he needs. he needs to strengthen his lower body to give himself a stronger base so he can play in the post better. his freshman year, he hurt his hip which stopped him from strengthening the lower body. his upper body will be fine until the lower body fills out.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a pretty fair and informed assessment. How can you not trust a guy who has minus 34 hexillion (a billion-trillion) points?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Sounds like a pretty fair and informed assessment. How can you not trust a guy who has minus 34 hexillion (a billion-trillion) points?


ahem... if you round it, its closer to 35 hexillion. and i wouldn't be snooty about it, it can happen to you too.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Spoolie Gee said:


> There's a long list of players that cant bench much but had great NBA careers. Kareem Abdul Jabar comes to mind.


Great analogy! I think George Mikan would probably dominate in today's NBA as well. Don't you? 

Manute Bol? Wow, now there is a tower of strength. Thanks for pointing things out to me.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Great analogy! I think George Mikan would probably dominate in today's NBA as well. Don't you?
> 
> Manute Bol? Wow, now there is a tower of strength. Thanks for pointing things out to me.


That is some of the worst logic and worst arguing I've ever seen.

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Ed O said:


> That is some of the worst logic and worst arguing I've ever seen.
> 
> Ed O.


Really? George Mikan could not bench much, and according to Spoolie, neither could KAJ. So, my point is that both were great in there respected era's but the game has changed. 

Thanks for the compliment. I have seen some of your round-about logic, and notice that many cannot make heads or tails of it here. So, if it confuses you, then it must be dead on.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> You do know Aldridge outweighs Morrison by 40 lbs., don't you? He's already bigger, both taller and heavier, than many successful players who play the same position he'll play in the NBA.
> 
> We know you have a man crush on Morrison, but I thought you said you were a Blazers fan. So, why the need to constantly put down Aldridge, a Blazer, in an attempt to make Morrsion, a Bobcat, look "good" by comparison. Why not let Morrison's accomplishments stand on their own?
> 
> BNM


Morrison is a SG, Aldridge is a PF/C.

I didn't like Aldridge while he was in college and I don't like his game now. It has nothing to do with being a Blazers or Bobcats fan.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> Really? George Mikan could not bench much, and according to Spoolie, neither could KAJ. So, my point is that both were great in there respected era's but the game has changed.
> 
> Thanks for the compliment. I have seen some of your round-about logic, and notice that many cannot make heads or tails of it here. So, if it confuses you, then it must be dead on.


It doesn't confuse me. It is ridiculous.

Ed O.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Your disagreement is ludicrous and attrocious.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> It doesn't confuse me. It is ridiculous.
> 
> Ed O.


Your saying the game hasn't changed and players aren't stronger than they were 20 or 30 years ago?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Morrison is a SG


Hmmm...

He's listed as a F on the Charlotte website.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> He's listed as a F on the Charlotte website.


He's started every game this preseason as a SG with Wallace at SF.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Like I told you before, someone thats 7 foot and has long arms wont be able to bench nearly as much as someone who's short. There's a long list of players that cant bench much but had great NBA careers. Kareem Abdul Jabar comes to mind.


back about 8 years ago, the NBA had a "strongest player" contest. The winner?

Robert Pack.

his opponent?

Kevin Willis.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Your saying the game hasn't changed and players aren't stronger than they were 20 or 30 years ago?


Nobody's saying that. Are you saying that Kareem was the "strongman" of his day? Because that's what you'd need. The Kareem example is of somebody who looked obviously skinny in comparison to his opponents, yet dominated them.

If you want a modern-day stringbean who puts up amazing all-round numbers when he's healthy, look no further than Marcus Camby. If he had a jump shot, he'd be all-NBA. As it is, he's one of the best rebounders and shot-blockers per minute, easily. 

Aldridge has said repeatedly that he never weight-trained for bulk before. He _never lifted_ before the test. It's not like he _can't_ put on muscle, he never had to. And besides, what's so great about muscly arms? Larry Bird had no definition on his arms. Tim Duncan is certainly not "cut". Doesn't seem to affect his ability to play basketball.

On the subject of comparing Aldridge, 82games.com did a nice little piece on a game he played in summer league:

Aldridge v. O'Bryant


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Hap said:


> back about 8 years ago, the NBA had a "strongest player" contest. The winner?
> 
> Robert Pack.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but Kevin and Robert have the same length arms--really.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> back about 8 years ago, the NBA had a "strongest player" contest. The winner?
> 
> Robert Pack.
> 
> ...


Kevin Willis had notoriously short arms for a 7 footer.

Ed O.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

You have all different body types at different heights and reach. Canby is skinny and tall and most likely cant bench much, but then you have Shaq, who could bench a Volvo. The point is, that neither side of this argument can prove their side with anecdotal evidence. There is just too much diversity in body type to make these generalizations. I don't know who is right, but arguments listing the strength or weakness of specific players hold no water in my eyes.

Shaq can bench more then anyone in the league (just a guess), does this prove that people with long arms can bench more? No, he is a monster and is not relatable to the rest of the NBA. Same holds for Canby, Ruben Patterson, Dr. J, Pippen, and any other specific person. The only way to prove who is correct is with more data and statistical analysis of many players comparing average reach to strength.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

The silliness that the Stache Twins will resort to in bashing Aldridge and any cretin who doesn't worship at the alter of Lord von Stache is giving me a good laugh. Thanks guys. :biggrin: 

See you at a game, zagsfan!

:cheers:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

BBert said:


> The silliness that the Stache Twins will resort to in bashing Aldridge and any cretin who doesn't worship at the alter of Lord von Stache is giving me a good laugh. Thanks guys. :biggrin:
> 
> See you at a game, zagsfan!
> 
> :cheers:


You bet, 

it was nice meeting you at the game.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I doubt either will be considered to be in the top 5 of this draft class in years to come.

In fact I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that Thomas will be the player we’ll regret passing over (trading) for Aldridge.

EDIT: In Aldridge's defense though, the bench press is a poor indicator of strength. I've known guys who could do 20+ pull-ups and barely bench their body weight. If you want to bench a lot you have to do that specific exercise. Also, Pectoral strength has little to do with basketball, in the post it's mainly leg strength and the ability to "pull" down rebounds.

If he was a lineman I might be concerned about his bench...


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Verro said:


> I doubt either will be considered to be in the top 5 of this draft class in years to come.
> 
> In fact I'm getting a sneaky suspicion that Thomas will be the player we’ll regret passing over (trading) for Aldridge.
> 
> ...



Definately right on.
I am one of those pull-up champs....hehe
Seriously, I could probably do pull-ups for an hour straight, but ask me to bench my own weight, and it is not happening. Certain muscles are built for certain things. And, furthermore, I doubt Aldridge is going to be asked to bench press anybody during a game. Bench press mostly measures pectoral strength, along with the arms, so, not really that big of an issue. 


Prunetang


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> He's started every game this preseason as a SG with Wallace at SF.



He's actually come off the bench, not started lately. And it's easy to see which possition he is playing by looking to see who the opposing teams leading scorer is.


Last nights game was awesome. A_am Morrison's line

20 minutes
4-11 shooting
10 points
0 rebounds
0 assists
0 steals
0 blocks
0 TO's
0 fouls
0 impact on the game


I couldn't tell which possition he played because every guard and forward for Atlanta shot well from the field. I'm guessing forward because more of them did, but I could be wrong.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Last night against Sacramento it was Aldridge's 8th straight game he went scoreless.

0-0 shooting
0 points
0 rebounds
0 assists
0 steals
0 blocks
0 TO's
0 fouls
0 impact on the game

He about matched his preseason totals.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Last night against Sacramento it was Aldridge's 8th straight game he went scoreless.
> 
> 0-0 shooting
> 0 points
> ...


Perhaps I'm the only one, but with me any way, you continue to lose credibility every time you criticize a player for being injured. If this turns into a pattern for Aldridge, then it's fair game. But I defy you to name a single NBA player who hasn't missed a few games over the course of his career. Even Karl "Iron Man" Malone missed games. This is a futile case you're making, and frankly, you're making yourself look silly. 

Almost as ridiculous is your claim that pre-season somehow doesn't matter for the guys who are actually on the floor. It doesn't matter - much - to veterans, who know the difference. But for a rookie trying to secure playing time, find a rhythm with a team, learn the NBA game, and prove to the doubters that he can make shots and play defense, it matters a great deal. 

Bottom line for me is that Adam Morrison has been largely unimpressive and Aldridge can't be judged, yet. But please, zagsfan, try to salvage some credibility and drop the "criticize the injured guy" campaign.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Last night against Sacramento it was Aldridge's 8th straight game he went scoreless.
> 
> 0-0 shooting
> 0 points
> ...


funny you take jabs at aldridge for being scoreless when your post was pointless


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

My point is very practical.

Aldridge is soft.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> My point is very practical.
> 
> Aldridge is soft.


Soft is usually a term used for players who can't play when they are a little injured, but if you have surgery, you shouldn't be playing.

You may be able to make a case for Aldridge being Fragile.

I know that in college people said LA was soft, but him being injured and needing surgery is not an argument supporting LA being soft or not soft. You could make a case that LA is soft, but use other evidence then this injury.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

Nate McVillain said:


> Soft is usually a term used for players who can't play when they are a little injured, but if you have surgery, you shouldn't be playing.


I agree. There are the Derek Andersons of the world who sit on the bench with a hangnail, but it's way too early to say that LaMarcus Aldridge fits that definition. 



> You may be able to make a case for Aldridge being Fragile.


I would amend that to say "you may _eventually_ be able to make case for Aldridge being fragile", but I would say that one injury as a pro is way too small a sample size to draw any kind of a conclusion. 



> I know that in college people said LA was soft, but him being injured and needing surgery is not an argument supporting LA being soft or not soft. You could make a case that LA is soft, but use other evidence then this injury.


Those who don't like Aldridge might call him "soft." Those who like him, might use words like "finesse" to describe his game, or might refer to his offense as being "varied." The question is whether he can adjust his skill set to the NBA. So far, it's all opinion with little basis in fact, because we haven't gotten a chance to see him.


----------



## wizmentor (Nov 10, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Last night against Sacramento it was Aldridge's 8th straight game he went scoreless.
> 
> 0-0 shooting
> 0 points
> ...


Sweet, I like your logic! It means that since I had the same preseason totals as
Kobe Bryant (and Michael Jordan, for that matter), I am destined for multiple
championships :biggrin: LA, too :biggrin:


----------

