# The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thread



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I thought I'd start this early for you guys in the hopes that you won't have to read the daily Thomas or Aldridge thread throughout the year. LOL.

Have a great season guys. Good luck in the playoffs.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



mediocre man said:


> I thought I'd start this early for you guys in the hopes that you won't have to read the daily Thomas or Aldridge thread throughout the year. LOL.
> 
> Have a great season guys. Good luck in the playoffs.



Although I don't appreciate other fans (like you) trying to rub it in I must go on the record to say Paxson's trade of Aldridge for Thomas has all the earmarks of an historical blunder. I said this at the time of the draft also.

I fully understand that I am in a distinct minority on this board and other posters are getting their knives out to carve me up. Certainly, it is much too early to make a definitive determination as to the ultimate outcome of the trade but the "Stromile Swift syndrome" is firmly in place and on time. That is to say, great athlete, poor worker, indifferent attitude. GM's get mesmerized by the athleticism and hops of a player and have fantasies of drafting another Kevin Garnett. 

The irony, of course, is that Swift and Thomas were both from LSU and have similar games and body types. I guess I shouldn't be so harsh, after all I make the same investing mistakes over and over.


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Of course LA's gonna look better. Portland's a crappy team.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Good is relative. 21 points on 6-11 shooting with 6 boards, 0 blocks in 30 minutes against a front line feature Paul Davis, Al Thornton and Aaron Williams is far from the inside presence for me. LA seems to play away from the basket a bit too much for my liking. On the Bulls he would hardly get any action if he played that way. I still prefer a bulked up Tyrus as this point. Not to mention LA has had a host of injuries already including missing 19 games last season. He is currently battling hip and knee problems.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

due to the lack of consistent scoring big men and how people magnify statistics in this league, guys like Curry and Aldridge always look good. The same thing can be said about guards. Look at guys like Bowen, Robman, and Wallace, they didn't get and aren't getting as much recognition as scorers but their impact was/is huge.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

What's with all the Bulls will regret taking Tyrus over Aldridge talk lately? Has Aldridge proven something in this league that Tyrus hasn't? If he has I haven't heard about it.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



charlietyra said:


> Although I don't appreciate other fans (like you) trying to rub it in I must go on the record to say Paxson's trade of Aldridge for Thomas has all the earmarks of an historical blunder. I said this at the time of the draft also.
> 
> I fully understand that I am in a distinct minority on this board and other posters are getting their knives out to carve me up.


Haha. Well when you use grossly hyperbolic language like "historical blunder," you kinda leave yourself open for criticism. That looks downright absurd in light of a moderate 17.17 to 14.80 edge in PER, especially when the trailing player isn't as far along his development curve, has higher upside, and arguably contributes more than can't be quantified statistically.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Were not talking about picking Darko before Mello here, and I dont think that even qualifies as a historical blunder.

But if the the savior of my franchise broke down before he ever played a game, I guess I would be looking for a small ray of hope too.

Good luck to Portland, at least you dont have to endure another 82 games of Z Bo pounding the damn ball while trying to get his.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

What, only a good game?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Yes. Thank God Z-Bo is gone. 

I really want people that don't already know, to know this thread was done more tongue in cheek than anything else. I think Thomas is going to be a really good player, and said so all last season in these threads. I just remember last year there seemed to be a thread every other day about how Aldridge did this, and then the next day it was how Thomas did that. 

Oden breaking down sucks, but in reality all it means is we will have him, Rudy Fernandez and another high lottery pick next season giving us even more talent. 

As for the peron who said Aldridge was "battling hip and knee problems"........he banged knees with someone in practice, and took an elbow to the hip. Certainly nothing like battling problems with either. And to say he wouldn't get any time on the Bulls is absurd at best. And as for "host of injuries"?????? He missed 6 games because of off season surgery last year, and the rest were due to an abnormality that was corrected, not an injury. Do I worry he could be an injury waiting to happen......YES. But it's not like he has had a bunch of nagging injuries.



As I said good luck to the Bulls this year in the playoffs. Hopefully in 3-4 years we can see you guys in the finals.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



JeremyB0001 said:


> Haha. Well when you use grossly hyperbolic language like "historical blunder," you kinda leave yourself open for criticism. That looks downright absurd in light of a moderate 17.17 to 14.80 edge in PER, especially when the trailing player isn't as far along his development curve, has higher upside, and arguably contributes more than can't be quantified statistically.


IMO that is not a "moderate" edge in PER. LA has a big edge in scoring ability. That is to say, the kid can shoot the ball. Something TT has struggled with. LA is about equal in rebounding and just a tad behind in shotblocking.

My point is that TT has a lot of potential and makes a lot of jaw-droppping blocks and put-backs but I think LA is the type of player that will deliver the goods on a regular basis rather than be on a highlight reel.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



charlietyra said:


> IMO that is not a "moderate" edge in PER. LA has a big edge in scoring ability. That is to say, the kid can shoot the ball. Something TT has struggled with. LA is about equal in rebounding and just a tad behind in shotblocking.
> 
> My point is that TT has a lot of potential and makes a lot of jaw-droppping blocks and put-backs but I think LA is the type of player that will deliver the goods on a regular basis rather than be on a highlight reel.


Why is everybody obsessed with scoring and more scoring and the measure of player by his scoring ability? We average 98 ppg, which is good for 13th in the league. We can move that up to around 100 with improved play from Deng, Gordon, Kirk, Tyrus. We already have enough scoring. We are going to win with defense.

Tyrus brings something that is rare in this league. He doesn't need plays run for him to score. He doesn't need the ball in his hands to change games. Look at the Spurs. The ball stays in the hands of Duncan, Parker and Ginobli. The rest of their players are good role players who are efficient without alot of touches. LA requires pick and roll to be run for him, etc.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



charlietyra said:


> Although I don't appreciate other fans (like you) trying to rub it in I must go on the record to say Paxson's trade of Aldridge for Thomas has all the earmarks of an historical blunder. I said this at the time of the draft also.
> 
> I fully understand that I am in a distinct minority on this board and other posters are getting their knives out to carve me up.


I wouldn't bet on that. Sophomoric skepticism and sonorous second-guessing rule here, as a rule. Your apprehensions will be embraced with enthusiasm.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

I'd take Tyrus over Lamarcus any day. Funner to watch, and much rarer athleticism and ability. If we had another worthwhile post player to pair him with he'd be deadly. Maybe Noah will be that guy, idk. Aldridge and Tyrus together would be nice, but in a vacuum I'd take Tyrus every time.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Since Oden seems like he has the potential to be a bigger, stronger version of Thomas (magnificent defense) with possibly much better offensive production - it seems that Aldridge will be a better selection for Portland to pair with him - and that's why, as a Portland fan I am still giddy that this trade was made. From Chicago's point of view, however, it seems that Noah and Tyrus will be a formidable defensive duo - but I wonder if someone like Aldridge with better offensive production would have been a better fit next to Noah.

At the end of the day - both have a bright future and arguments can be made either way and only time will tell which one was the better selection (if it ever becomes clear).


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



andalusian said:


> Since Oden seems like he has the potential to be a bigger, stronger version of Thomas (magnificent defense) with possibly much better offensive production - it seems that Aldridge will be a better selection for Portland to pair with him - and that's why, as a Portland fan I am still giddy that this trade was made. From Chicago's point of view, however, it seems that Noah and Tyrus will be a formidable defensive duo - but I wonder if someone like Aldridge with better offensive production would have been a better fit next to Noah.
> 
> At the end of the day - both have a bright future and arguments can be made either way and only time will tell which one was the better selection (if it ever becomes clear).



I agree LA is a good fit for Portland and Oden. Although they have Frye too who is a perimeter big like LA.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Aldridge is going to have a better season than Tyrus Thomas. He's a really good player and with Oden out, should put up some serious numbers. For those who want to second-guess Paxson on this one, it'll be a good season.

I think it's clear that the drafting of Thomas over Aldridge was a bit of a risk. Aldridge is an excellent talent with a higher "floor" than Thomas. Thomas's "ceiling" is better than Aldridge's.

I think it was the right time for Paxson to make a super-high-potential "reach" pick. Many thought he'd never make such a pick. he made it and Thomas is our guy. We're a long way from knowing whether the risk was worth it.

That said, I wish Aldridge luck when he's not playing the Bulls...he's a very nice player.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Just to add my 2 cents.I clearly think that alridge is what need now.Because thiers a lot of reports out of chi town on how bad a worker thomas is and how he's dogging it at times even during games.I've never heard that about alridge ever,although i don't really follow him so i could be wrong on this.Still I just feel that looking how both of our player out the deal are going and where alridge is headed(i feel towards great things) that we might have miss out on a great player that could have helped us a lot.Espically last year,with ben who cann't score worth a lick.To have alridge next to him for the next 3 years would be a lot better then having Thomas who is just as bad at scoring as ben is,if not slightly better because of his age.And I don't want to even talk about VK,that just makes the deal look even worse for us.Bottom line we will regert this trade 1 day.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



ballerkingn said:


> Just to add my 2 cents.I clearly think that alridge is what need now.Because thiers a lot of reports out of chi town on how bad a worker thomas is and how he's dogging it at times even during games.I've never heard that about alridge ever,although i don't really follow him so i could be wrong on this.Still I just feel that looking how both of our player out the deal are going and where alridge is headed(i feel towards great things) that we might have miss out on a great player that could have helped us a lot.Espically last year,with ben who cann't score worth a lick.To have alridge next to him for the next 3 years would be a lot better then having Thomas who is just as bad at scoring as ben is,if not slightly better because of his age.And I don't want to even talk about VK,that just makes the deal look even worse for us.Bottom line we will regert this trade 1 day.


TT 15.5 points per 40 min
LMA 16.2 points per 40 min
Ben Wallace 7.3 points per 40 (just for the heck of it)

TT 52.1 TS%
LMA 53.3 TS%

TT 7.2 FTA per 40
LMA 3.3 FTA per 40

It's a myth that Aldridge is much better than Tyrus offensively. I'd say he's a little better. He's less raw and posted somewhat better scoring stats. As you can see Tyrus is miles ahead of Wallace in terms of scoring. I admit the difference in scoring would be a little bigger if these numbers were adjusted for pace but it wouldn't be as huge as some people would have you believe. Tyrus also gets to the line a lot better.

After the all-star break last year Aldridge averaged something like 16 and 8 (a Portland fan would know the exact numbers). Tyrus was also pretty good after the all-star break. He had a PER of over 18. Not too shabby. 

I think people are going to be surprised at how well Noah and Tyrus are going to work together on offense. Noah is an excellent passer and with TT making quick cuts to the basket Noah should get him some easy baskets. The Bulls run this play with Wallace all the time. Even though Wallace is a good passer, he isn't a threat to take it to the basket or to take a jumper. Noah can put it on the floor as well as any big and even though his jumper is ugly he hit a reasonable rate in college.

Right now Tyrus and Aldridge are at comparable levels. Sure Aldridge is a more polished player but everyone knew that was the case even during last years draft so nobody should act surprised. Frankly neither side can say they hit a jackpot trade here nor can either side say they made a blunder.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Is it time to post the first Aaron Gray had a good game thread?


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Im not writing off tyrus, but i found the trade really surprising. Aldridge was the Pax kind of guy in that draft. Strong fundamentals, well grounded and by all reports a really good attitude. I would have thought he would gone for Aldridge and Brewer. Pax wasnt to know but as soon as we secured Wallace it was clear that Aldridge would have been the better pick. His skill set would really help our team at this point but there's nothing to say Tyrus won't come along over the next couple of seasons.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

I just feel that alridge is what we could use right now.Thomas is more of the future (maybe).Alridge is right now,because if we had him last years playoffs who knows how we do against the piston's.We clearly need an offensive player at the 4 or 5 spot last year because all the piston did was play 3on 5 the whole playoffs which made things very easy for us.

But i wouldn't write of Thomas so soon yet either,but he has to develope a reliable jumper,and work on his game more often.Or hay he has 3 hard workers maybe 4 now he needs o work out with 1 of them during the summer or be around them and see how they work.Add that extra work to his game and i think then he could in my mind over take alridge.I still see alridge as the better player


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Snake said:


> It's a myth that Aldridge is much better than Tyrus offensively.


Great post. Aldridge's offensive edge is vastly overstated. It's baffling to me that this long after the draft people are still insisting that what's really missing from our offense is yet another jump shooter.

Alridge's biggest strength is perhaps his low turnover rate and I found it interesting that Hollinger pointed out that might make it difficult for him to improve dramatically.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

The reason why I think Thomas is the better pick than Aldrdige (mind you I wanted to draft Aldridge at the time), is that Aldridge isn't a good passer at all. He is at the Eddy Curry level. You can't run an offense through him. Thomas had decent assist numbers last year for the time he played...which was just in the above average category for big men. But in summer league and preseason, with him playing with more savvy and under control, his passing is going up....and he might be a C-Webb level passer. We can run a high post offense through Thomas...like we were doing against Dallas. Its going to spell trouble for the rest of the league the more comfortable Thomas gets in the high post.


----------



## toutlaw25 (Aug 7, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Mebarak said:


> The reason why I think Thomas is the better pick than Aldrdige (mind you I wanted to draft Aldridge at the time), is that Aldridge isn't a good passer at all. He is at the Eddy Curry level. You can't run an offense through him. Thomas had decent assist numbers last year for the time he played...which was just in the above average category for big men. But in summer league and preseason, with him playing with more savvy and under control, his passing is going up....and he might be a C-Webb level passer. We can run a high post offense through Thomas...like we were doing against Dallas. Its going to spell trouble for the rest of the league the more comfortable Thomas gets in the high post.



I think Thomas is going to be a very good player in this league, but he still looks pretty raw. He's still extremely young though and a good work ethic will go a long way. However, I hope you're not seriously comparing his passing skills to CWebb. That is a joke.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



McBulls said:


> I wouldn't bet on that. Sophomoric skepticism and sonorous second-guessing rule here, as a rule. Your apprehensions will be embraced with enthusiasm.


As they should be, right?

I mean, Aldridge dropped 29 yesterday. It's preseason, so we take it for what it's worth: a showing that Aldridge's teammates are looking to him as a primary offensive weapon. Would Tyrus be in that position if he were on the Blazers. . . I don't see it. 

We'll see how this all shakes out -- and hopefully Tyrus recovers from a sub par development-centered rookie year to produce -- but nothing in Charlie's statements seems any further out of the realm of possibility than anything else I read on here.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



JeremyB0001 said:


> Great post. Aldridge's offensive edge is vastly overstated. It's baffling to me that this long after the draft people are still insisting that what's really missing from our offense is yet another jump shooter.
> 
> Alridge's biggest strength is perhaps his low turnover rate and I found it interesting that Hollinger pointed out that might make it difficult for him to improve dramatically.


If you think Aldridge is just a jump shooter you have no idea what your talking about. The guy will be one of the best offensive rebounders in the league one day which will result in a lot of dunks, layups and tips. He also has a very nice hook shot. Last year he scored 62% of his points in the paint and at the free-throw line.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Spoolie Gee said:


> If you think Aldridge is just a jump shooter you have no idea what your talking about. The guy will be one of the best offensive rebounders in the league one day which will result in a lot of dunks, layups and tips. He also has a very nice hook shot. Last year he scored 62% of his points in the paint and at the free-throw line.


Add the fact that he is extremely quick for a big man and does a fantastic job of finishing on the break and that he bulked up.



> But after the game, the talk in the Hawks' locker room was largely centered around Aldridge. The second-year forward, who is expected to be among the Blazers leading scorers along with Brandon Roy, had the Hawks shaking their heads afterward.
> 
> "LaMarcus -- he just looks so improved," said rookie Al Horford, who did his own amount of damage with 14 points and 11 rebounds. "He has definitely put on some weight. But all of our guys had a hard time fronting their big men -- they were all able to get such deep post position."
> 
> ...


http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/o...e/sports/11924151516020.xml&coll=7&thispage=2

If anything, Aldridge's output last year was not indicative of what he can do - he started the year with a shoulder injury and missed all of training camp, he spent a lot of time behind Randolph and Magloire and once he got into the groove at the end of the year, he had the heart problems that were since fixed.

Expect a much improved offensive year from Aldridge.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Spoolie Gee said:


> If you think Aldridge is just a jump shooter you have no idea what your talking about. The guy will be one of the best offensive rebounders in the league one day which will result in a lot of dunks, layups and tips. He also has a very nice hook shot. Last year he scored 62% of his points in the paint and at the free-throw line.





andalusian said:


> Add the fact that he is extremely quick for a big man and does a fantastic job of finishing on the break and that he bulked up.
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/o...e/sports/11924151516020.xml&coll=7&thispage=2
> 
> ...


Obviously it was hyperbole to say Aldridge is _only_ a jumpshooter but can't you guys take a step out of your shoes as Blazer's fans for a minute and consider that your take may be a bit rosy? Taking his dozen or so best games, including _preseason games_ and setting that as the level he's going to perform at this season is nuts. His performance last regular season is by far the best indicator we have of what kind of player we'll be and there's absolutely no reason to throw out huge chunks of the season just because he had an injury and played behind people as a rookie when those are pretty common occurances in the NBA. 

That's great that Aldridge scored in the paint once in a preseason game and it's intriguing if he truly bulked up a lot in the offseason. The reality of the situation though is that guys don't usually just spend some time in the weight room in the offseason and suddenly develop a low post game. I've seen Aldridge play before and the hook shot that you've mentioned and the back to the basket *jumper* referenced in that article are the types of back to the basket moves he's capable of. They're finesse moves twelve feet out from the basket and not necessarily high percentage shots near the basket. His TS% was good last season but it wasn't phenomenal and that's presumably because he wasn't creating high percentage shots left and right.

I'm not entirely sure about the 60% figure you're referencing. 82 games shows him at 59% jumpers which isn't as pure jump shooters who sometimes hover around 80% but it's still somewhat high.

Another reason his TS% wasn't spectacular is that he was _not_ getting to the line at a high rate. 3.3 FTA per 40 is not a good free throw rate, especially for a big man. By comparison Tyrus got to the line more than twice as often last season with 7.2 FTA per 40. 

You're right that he's a good offensive rebounder but in light of that his defensive rebounding is absolutely dreadful when you considering that he only averaged 9 rebounds per 40 minutes; those are almost Eddy Curry rebounding numbers (8.5 rebounds per 40 throughout his career).


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Anyone who expects Aldridge to have Shaq/Duncan like post moves is going to be disappointed - but he is not a finesse only player. He will get points from all over the place, some in the post, some mid-range shooting, some on the break and some on put-backs. To be honest, Portland hopefully does not need Aldridge to be a post beast - as Oden could and should fill that role in the future.

I think that those of us who did follow him closely last year believe he has a much better offensive production in front of him by seeing how good he was during the stretch where he finally got consistent minutes before his heart condition cut his season short. So far, during the pre-season he seems to do better - so the analysis that his performance last year was down because of these issues - missing all of training camp (a bit deal for a rookie down in the depth chart), limited time until he got into the groove etc.. - does make some sense.

While I agree that it is hard for a player to make an amazing jump if you already have a consistent, long sample size to judge him in the NBA - it seems that Aldridge's short career and the obvious set-backs he had during last year - render this small sample size as suspect.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



andalusian said:


> Anyone who expects Aldridge to have Shaq/Duncan like post moves is going to be disappointed - but he is not a finesse only player. He will get points from all over the place, some in the post, some mid-range shooting, some on the break and some on put-backs. To be honest, Portland hopefully does not need Aldridge to be a post beast - as Oden could and should fill that role in the future.


I agree that he compliments Oden very well. That's a great front court pairing. I probably have a tendency to hammer home the back to the basket scoring thing too much because I'm used to Bulls fans claiming Aldridge is a perfect fit four our team and I don't think a finesse four fits the team's needs that well. I don't mean to use finesses like it's a bad word, I just think that Aldridge scores more with good fundamentals, solid quickness, and smarts than he does with tremendous athleticism and/or force.



andalusian said:


> I think that those of us who did follow him closely last year believe he has a much better offensive production in front of him by seeing how good he was during the stretch where he finally got consistent minutes before his heart condition cut his season short. So far, during the pre-season he seems to do better - so the analysis that his performance last year was down because of these issues - missing all of training camp (a bit deal for a rookie down in the depth chart), limited time until he got into the groove etc.. - does make some sense.
> 
> While I agree that it is hard for a player to make an amazing jump if you already have a consistent, long sample size to judge him in the NBA - it seems that Aldridge's short career and the obvious set-backs he had during last year - render this small sample size as suspect.


I just kinda feel that with a young player you can always find a way to rationalize games so that the better games are the true indicator of the player's ability. As I noted in my last posts, injuries and struggles for playing time as a rookie aren't at all uncommon in the NBA. For instance, Tyrus also experienced an injury last season and he arguably had to fight for playing time more than Aldridge did. The thing about the small sample size from last season is that it's quite good! If the results were more suprising, for instance if he struggled a lot, I'd be more inclined to chalk up the results to some difficult circumstances. Instead he exceeded circumstances if anything so it's just hard for me to buy the line or reasoning that says "It was a little bit flukish that he had a great rookie season because really he should've had a mind blowing rookie season."


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



JeremyB0001 said:


> I just kinda feel that with a young player you can always find a way to rationalize games so that the better games are the true indicator of the player's ability.


Fair enough. I can not argue with this logic. 

FWIW - I do not think that I do it with every rookie - a lot of people are really high on Sergio Rodriguez and tend to gloss over his bad games for the magical moments - but I do not share this optimism because I never saw any consistency from him - while I saw some from Aldridge when he got the time. I will be surprised if Aldridge does not emerge as an offensive force, but I will be surprised if Sergio becomes the next Steve Nash as some people try to paint him. I guess at this time we can just take a wait and see approach.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



andalusian said:


> I guess at this time we can just take a wait and see approach.


Luckily we don't have to wait too much longer.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

First off, this guy isn't 6"11. He stood right next to TD and he was visibly TALLER than him. His body is filling out tremendously and his offensive arsenal is only rivaled (sp) by few bigs in this league. He hits 20 footers like a guard, has a jump-hook that is UN-GUARDABLE and he gets up and down the floor incredibly quick. He is a SCORER.

If you put that next to Kirk, Luol, Ben & Ben, there would be NO reason to even talk about trading for Kobe.

I won't say Pax made a mistake because I know why he was such a fan of TT in the first place but he (LA) would of solved an immediate issue for us.

Good character guy, works hard and is getting better.

Don't know if any of you caught the Trailblazers preseason games but LA was BEASTING like a 10 year vet.

So yes, if I we could do it again, I personally would of kept LA (knowing what we know now).


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Aldridge looks good.. Really good. Man, I wonder if Tyrus can even develop to be as good offensively as Aldridge is NOW.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



The ROY said:


> First off, this guy isn't 6"11. He stood right next to TD and he was visibly TALLER than him. His body is filling out tremendously and his offensive arsenal is only rivaled (sp) by few bigs in this league. He hits 20 footers like a guard, has a jump-hook that is UN-GUARDABLE and he gets up and down the floor incredibly quick. He is a SCORER.
> 
> If you put that next to Kirk, Luol, Ben & Ben, there would be NO reason to even talk about trading for Kobe.
> 
> ...


Yeah, but he's lousy at stare-downs over the dinner table.

Based on his performance against SA so far tonight, it doesn't look like the Aldridge/2 pick - Thomas/Khryapa trade was one of Paxson's finer moments. At the time lots of pundits were accusing him of lack of imagination and courage to draft "freaks". Maybe he should have listened to his head instead. On the other hand, we haven't seen TT play in the regular season yet.

BTW, Frye looks terrible. On defense he still has a lot of NY left in him.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Yeah. It does sting a little bit thinking about what Aldridge could've done for this team. Tyrus really needs to step it up.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



McBulls said:


> Yeah, but he's lousy at stare-downs over the dinner table.
> 
> Based on his performance against SA so far tonight, it doesn't look like the Aldridge/2 pick - Thomas/Khryapa trade was one of Paxson's finer moments. At the time lots of pundits were accusing him of lack of imagination and courage to draft "freaks". Maybe he should have listened to his head instead. On the other hand, we haven't seen TT play in the regular season yet.
> 
> BTW, Frye looks terrible. On defense he still has a lot of NY left in him.


Yeah, don't get me wrong, I love TT but I do feel like we made a mistake.

We basically took a risk really, as talented as TT is, he may or may not pan out. LaMarcus is already one of the best scoring bigs in the entire NBA.

I just HATE the way he runs the court though.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Chops said:


> Aldridge looks good.. Really good. Man, I wonder if Tyrus can even develop to be as good offensively as Aldridge is NOW.


Man, do u see this cat pulling up shooting jumpers over Duncan like he's not even there? It's starting to hurt

oouch lol


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Do ya'll SEE this kid shooting jumpers and hitting hooks over Duncan?? Duncan's looking like Curry on defense right now.

We messed up, BADLY

If TT can develop atleast a consistent JUMPER this year, I'll be happy. I know he's rawer than LaMarcus but geez, we actually DRAFTED this dude and traded him. That's the part that irks me the most.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Based on less than a half of seeing him play this season I would have to say I disagree. I'm watching this guy closely just because he's on my fantasy team and I'm not all that impressed. Just think about how Tyrus would be performing if he was on a team like Portland. I think he'd be doing quite a bit better than aldridge. And aldridge would be on the Bulls bench far more than Tyrus has been. LaMarcus is in a good situation in Portland and I think he'll do alright but I don't regret that trade at all.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

You guys all know I'm a huge Tyrus fan, but I've also had a lot of doubts. 

I was on the Aldridge Bandwagon and Hawes/Yi one before each draft. But come the actual draft, I changed my mind to Ty and Noah. I don't know if I changed it b/c I truly liked them, but more b/c I had confidence on Pax's track record and how he has done that I "believed" in his picks and believed in them as if they were the guys I wanted the whole way.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



The ROY said:


> Do ya'll SEE this kid shooting jumpers and hitting hooks over Duncan?? Duncan's looking like Curry on defense right now.
> 
> We messed up, BADLY
> 
> If TT can develop atleast a consistent JUMPER this year, I'll be happy. I know he's rawer than LaMarcus but geez, we actually DRAFTED this dude and traded him. That's the part that irks me the most.


No. It will look like we drafted him and traded him. But he was not the guy we wanted. He was probably our second choice. But Pax's guy the entire time was Tyrus Thomas. It always was. It wasn't that we made the deal b/c Portland was giving us Viktor for a 2nd round pick.

That said, I know GMs need to take a 'risk' at times. Tyrus has all the superstar potential. By LMA has the potential to be a solid 18 + 10 Big for his career. 

I still have hope for Tyrus. Always have. But I'd be lying through my teeth if I did not have doubts here and there since that draft.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Like always, Paxson should have listened to me. I was one of the very few on this board that actually wanted Aldridge, and really wanted nothing to do with tyrus. if Paxson just listened to me, looking at my impeccable draft scouting (Dwyane Wade; Luol Deng; LaMarcus Aldridge). The guys I pick always turn out to be good, and not just good, allstar good...superstar good. Paxson has done some good things. No real qualms about Hinrich, since he was my #2 option for the Bulls (and only logical option after Wade). The one pick Paxson made that I wasn't too privy on was the Gordon one, I was just happy that draft because we ended up with Deng. That one turned out good, so kudos to Paxson on him. But like usual, he should have went with my draft choice.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



FrankTheTank said:


> Based on less than a half of seeing him play this season I would have to say I disagree. I'm watching this guy closely just because he's on my fantasy team and I'm not all that impressed. Just think about how Tyrus would be performing if he was on a team like Portland. I think he'd be doing quite a bit better than aldridge. And aldridge would be on the Bulls bench far more than Tyrus has been. LaMarcus is in a good situation in Portland and I think he'll do alright but I don't regret that trade at all.


If Tyrus was on Portland, yeah he'd have better numbers but I SERIOUSLY doubt he'd be doing better than Aldridge. Aldridge is way more polished and there's NO way he'd be on the bench much in Chicago with his offensive output.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

The Bulls would easily trade TT for Oden, heck even add some players to get that. Guess what, Aldridge could end up being a better player than Oden. The guy is oozing with potential.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



FrankTheTank said:


> Based on less than a half of seeing him play this season I would have to say I disagree. I'm watching this guy closely just because he's on my fantasy team and I'm not all that impressed. Just think about how Tyrus would be performing if he was on a team like Portland. I think he'd be doing quite a bit better than aldridge. And aldridge would be on the Bulls bench far more than Tyrus has been. LaMarcus is in a good situation in Portland and I think he'll do alright but I don't regret that trade at all.


Wow. Really?

I dont even know what to say.

Terrible post, just terrible.............



Um.....You're stupid.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



HB said:


> The Bulls would easily trade TT for Oden, heck even add some players to get that. Guess what, Aldridge could end up being a better player than Oden. The guy is oozing with potential.


Tyrus will be a better player than Oden. Thats setting the bar pretty low. A lot of players will be better than Oden. Aaron Gray will probably be better than Oden. Aldridge will crush Oden in terms of being betterness.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



Mebarak said:


> Tyrus will be a better player than Oden. Thats setting the bar pretty low. A lot of players will be better than Oden. Aaron Gray will probably be better than Oden. Aldridge will crush Oden in terms of being betterness.



Edit: Cut it out.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



Mebarak said:


> Tyrus will be a better player than Oden. Thats setting the bar pretty low. A lot of players will be better than Oden. Aaron Gray will probably be better than Oden. Aldridge will crush Oden in terms of being betterness.


Are you 21 yet?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

19pts in the 3rd quarter..already

kid is a beast


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

The thing that really hurts with Aldridge is how much of a perfect fit he is for our team. We like to play a guy in the high post, that can nail jumpers. Aldridge excels at that. Aldridge in the high post with Wallace/Gray in the lowpost would be great. 

Also, Aldridge runs the floor better than Tyrus too.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



HB said:


> The Bulls would easily trade TT for Oden, heck even add some players to get that. Guess what, Aldridge could end up being a better player than Oden. The guy is oozing with potential.


I am so underwhelmed in terms of the kid's defensive reactions. Doesn't seem like much of a rebounder either.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



Mebarak said:


> Also, Aldridge runs the floor better than Tyrus too.


No


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



The ROY said:


> Man, do u see this cat pulling up shooting jumpers over Duncan like he's not even there? It's starting to hurt
> 
> oouch lol


How was his defense? Or rebounds? Is he another version of Curry? 

I would only regret TT pick over Aldridge IF Aldridge ends up being a better all-around player than Curry, not just copy of Curry, i.e. one-trick pony.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



Mebarak said:


> Tyrus will be a better player than Oden. Thats setting the bar pretty low. A lot of players will be better than Oden. Aaron Gray will probably be better than Oden. Aldridge will crush Oden in terms of being betterness.


I'm convinced you know nothing about basketball. First you say Ben Gordon will become a better player than Kobe Bryant, and now you say Aaron Gray will be better than Oden? Wow. Unbelievable.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

3 rebounds. Not even curry numbers


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



lgtwins said:


> How was his defense? Or rebounds? *Is he another version of Curry?*
> 
> I would only regret TT pick over Aldridge IF Aldridge ends up being a better all-around player than Curry, not just copy of Curry, i.e. one-trick pony.


You could fit two Aldridges into Curry. 

Aldridge could run circles around Curry during a fast break and still beat him down the floor.

Curry gets almost all his points in the low post. LA gets only a fraction of his points there, and is nowhere near as unstoppable as Curry. On the other hand he does have a very nice face-up mid-range jumper.

LA had a Curry-like allergy to passing, but at least didn't throw the ball away.


LA didn't look like a defensive stopper, but at least he played defense and ran the floor well.

Tonight LA looked a bit like Curry in that he didn't get many rebounds, but Portand tied San Antonio in that statistic, so someone (mainly Pryzbilla) was getting the boards.

Overall, I don't think you'll see Portland offering Aldridge in trade for Curry.


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Reading some of these myopic posts is pretty funny to me. There's no argument. Aldridge >>>>>>>>> Thomas. Aldridge was easily the best offensive player on the floor tonight in a game that featured Duncan, Parker, Ginobli, Finley, Roy, etc. Thomas' claim to fame is that one guy who said he was only going to the dunk contest for the money and then quickly became the guy who everyone in the crowd in Vegas was leaning to their buddy with "Who is this guy again? And why is he in this contest?"

-Pop


----------



## RoyToy (May 25, 2007)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Aldridge >


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*

Aldridge's defensive effort was unusually abysmal tonight. His offense was stylin' though. Blazers team offense was bloody crisp. But San An's was crisper and Portland didn't do enough about that. 

Przybilla step back! Epic.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

this thread is great proof of what outstanding "after the fact" gm's there are out here in cyberspace. of course you guys can see it NOW; he's doing what portland, lamarcus, his agent et al hoped he would do. i think paxson knew the kid has some game; he was gambling on tyrus *becoming* a better player.

while aldridge is making the most of his opportunity; *nothing* is official other than the OP being able to change his mind back and forth rather whimsically based on a nice game or two (or 3). btw, i saw the game too. didn't he give up 23 and 13 to duncan? then in my mind, his output's a wash.

when tyrus has strings together some good play, most of these guys will simply state the obvious "i knew it", or "i said he was going to"......

if your balls were on the line as much as the real gm, i really do wonder what some of these guys would do. 

btw, how come there's no "official i'm off the brandon roy bandwagon"? he shot 2-10.......:biggrin:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Okay, I'm known as a Tyrus supporter. He is my favorite player on the Bulls just ahead of Luol. But a lot of him being my favorite is due to two primary things: 1. Highlights and 2. Potential/Talent. I am not saying Tyrus is Eddy or Tyson, but those guys were valued highly in my eyes for a while b/c they had the physical gifts to be superstars. Unfortuantely they made fools out of me. Tyrus has the same potential, but maybe less because he isn't a 7 footer. I think he is physically more gifted than Aldridge. But in the back of my mind, I still wonder if we made the right choice. 

Reasons why I am not giving up on Ty: 
1. I have not seen in my recent memory that *raw* of a rookie come in and make a impact on the game. It wasn't the box score, but it was how he changed momentum. 

2. FTA/game. It's insane. And a great gift. I am biased in that I love players who get to the line. Well all except Wade. Its one reason why I like Maggette (also he went to Duke). 

3. Tyrus is not scared. He has arrogance. There is a fine line in not being fearful and being overconfident in your ability that you may not work as hard in your game. I think he does work hard (is bigger, has a better J), but sometimes the less talented guys work harder. I hope this is not the case. Too much is riding on his shoulders. 

4. You see what he can be. Look at the 27 point outing against CLE. 
This here is what I want to see from a Prime Tyrus Thomas. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryS5XXxe5sk 

The entire resume' of moves. 

Why I have doubts and like Aldridge: 
1. His offense. We all know he is polished. 

2. His size 

Now I did not see most of the PTL-SA game, so tell me if I'm wrong. But I'm not impressed by his lack of rebounding. Was his guy out on the wing? Why did he have few rebounds? 

Defensively, how did he look in comparison to Tyrus usually does? 

I think both can be studs. The issue for me being hesistant is that Tyrus is not a sure thing while with Aldridge, you get what you see. That said, we all know Tyrus has the higher ceiling. Bilas had him rated the #1 talent in the draft. 

It's too early to make any calls on whether we made the right pick or not. For me, the reason why I'm still calm b/c I trust Pax. Will he eventually make a mistake? Yes, all people do. Maybe this was it. But given his track record, I cannot say this has been one till the end of the 3rd year. By then, I think we get a good idea of who will be okay and who will be good/great. 

But I'm one of the few who think that our chances of a title with this core rest of Tyrus' shoulders. And, I think this year, we will find out a lot about the Thomas selection. One thing is for sure, Skiles and Pax know how critical he is and are going out of their way to know he reaches his potential.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Watching SA-Portland today was depressing. Aldridge is so far ahead of Tyrus as a basketball player it isn't even funny. We'd be a shoe-in for at least the ECF today had Paxson kept him.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Paxson has done incredibly well on drafting players. Unfortunately you won't hit a home run every time. Kobe was drafted 15. Jordan 3rd. Boozer was 30 something. Many teams struck out in those instances. Aldridge looks like a very good player.

I won't complain about Paxson's drafting if he didn't get it perfect once. Hopefully TT will turn into a solid player.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



R-Star said:


> Wow. Really?
> 
> I dont even know what to say.
> 
> ...


wow, good points buddy. you really made yourself sound smarter than me. when you find something to say, why dont you actually write something to back up your mindless criticism. cheers.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



BULLHITTER said:


> this thread is great proof of what outstanding "after the fact" gm's there are out here in cyberspace. of course you guys can see it NOW; he's doing what portland, lamarcus, his agent et al hoped he would do. i think paxson knew the kid has some game; he was gambling on tyrus *becoming* a better player.
> 
> while aldridge is making the most of his opportunity; *nothing* is official other than the OP being able to change his mind back and forth rather whimsically based on a nice game or two (or 3). btw, i saw the game too. didn't he give up 23 and 13 to duncan? then in my mind, his output's a wash.
> 
> ...


ok, u're talking as if I said Tyrus is just bum or something. I still believe in the kid, always have but the fact of the matter is LA was the PERFECT player for the Bulls @ the time, period. He still may have a better career than LA, I'm not debating that but our team is lacking in the area that LaMarcus SHINES in so it's kinda hard not to miss that presence.

I change my mind every other game huh? Wow...that's funny but man, if ya hadn't noticed, all sports fans are wishy-washy. That's just the nature of fans of sports. Most fans don't realize how long potential takes sometimes to develop either. He's a kid, he'll get better but @ this point in time, I wish we kept LaMarcus. If that sounds bad, oh well, but trust me folks, Joe Smith ain't the answer.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

*Tyrus Thomas, date of birth: 8-17-86
Lamarcus Aldridge, date of birth: 7-19-85*

So you have to keep in mind that Tyrus is a late bloomer, AND 13 months younger. Anyone who thinks that isn't a considerable factor is a fool. I take Tyrus every time still, although considering we're in win-now mode, Aldridge does probably make more sense in the immediate future. In a few years though, I think Tyrus will be better and we'll be glad we got him, or would be regretting it if we had kept Aldridge.

Tyrus has a much more unique skill set and is a real playmaker, which the Bulls sorely lack. There's finally something worth anticipating other than a jump shot when he's on the floor. Also, don't forget that last year, as a kid that just turned 20, he was stuffing Shaq, Garnett, Duncan AND Dirk. (He might not have blocked Garnett, but I remember very clearly when he got Dirk and Shaq--first career blcok right there on the diesel) His effect, as a result, can't truly be measured statistically. Knowing a shotblocker is around that can block basically anything you put up anywhere near the paint has to affect how players play. Aldridge sure as hell doesn't give you that.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



DaBabyBullz said:


> *Tyrus Thomas, date of birth: 8-17-86
> Lamarcus Aldridge, date of birth: 7-19-85*
> 
> So you have to keep in mind that Tyrus is a late bloomer, AND 13 months younger. Anyone who thinks that isn't a considerable factor is a fool. I take Tyrus every time still, although considering we're in win-now mode, Aldridge does probably make more sense in the immediate future. In a few years though, I think Tyrus will be better and we'll be glad we got him, or would be regretting it if we had kept Aldridge.
> ...



Yeah, but he DOES take the pressure off the backcourt by giving the team 20 ppg in the painted area. Every great guard or sf in the league wishes they had what? yep, a big man that can score in the paint, and easily, and LaMarcus DOES this. Basically, Tyrus needs to develop an offensive game or we're SOL. He'll become a smarter player and great defender but WILL HE PUT UP POINTS? and that's BESIDES dunks and freethrows?

I guess we'll see but LA is looking like a man amongst boys when it comes to putting that ball in the hoop.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



BULLHITTER said:


> didn't he give up 23 and 13 to duncan? then in my mind, his output's a wash.


Pryzbilla was on Duncan most of the game, not Aldridge - not that it matters much, It is Tim freaking Duncan. It is not like he averages 2 pts per game and goes off on Aldridge. He does it to just about everyone...

Tyrus Thomas will probably be be a better defender than Aldridge - but Aldridge is not a bad defender, he is not Zach Randolph or Eddie Curry. 

On the offense on the other hand - Aldridge is already a beast. Just think how much easier it will be for him once Oden comes back. People will not be able to cheat off Pryzbilla to double Aldridge as they do now...


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



FrankTheTank said:


> wow, good points buddy. you really made yourself sound smarter than me. when you find something to say, why dont you actually write something to back up your mindless criticism. cheers.



Your right. Taking the time to post facts with you and Sloth seems worthy of my time.

Seeing as how your facts are, "Tyrus is better, LaMarcus doesnt look that great. If Tyrus was on Portland, he'd be putting up way better stats", I dont really see the point.

Heres an idea, look at a ****ing stat sheet. Theres my fact. But you're right, replace LA with Tyrus and he'd double the production. Tyrus is by far the better player.


Wake me up when you run out of Kool Aid and your Bulls glasses break. By that time Aldridge should have played in a few ASG's and Tyrus will be playing NBA 2K12 with Jon Bender and Darius Miles.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

To be honest im more fussed about not drafting Ronnie Brewer.

Tyrus obviously is less experienced in terms of playing basketball than LaMarcus and has alot to catch up on just simple fundamentals of the game. Sure, LaMarcus has the head start against Tyrus, but i think he will slowly but gradually even up with him in due time. Add to the fact that Tyrus has much potential and all the physical tools to be a great player in this league, whether he has the mentally to put it all together remains to be seen.

You also have to remember right now, their productivness in a game is totally different. LaMarcus main weapon is his scoring productivity, and Tyrus its his outstanding defensive presences. Its harder to gauge someones defensive presences as it is measuring someones effectiveness as a scorer because you can see with points. With defense, the amount of shot altercations, deflections or even someone passing up the ball instead of going for the shot because of Tyrus's presences isn't accounted for which as a result peoples judgement on a player is clouded because there isn't hard evidence to prove anything unless you watch every game intently.

That being said, i think Tyrus will catch up to LaMarcus and still has much more potential than he ever will have, its only a matter of time.

But back to my more pressing issue is the fact that Ronnie Brewer seems to have adjusted his game from his rookie season. He has taken the starting spot at shooting guard for a very good team. Since preseason and now after the first game, he seems to have become more confident and become a better shooter also. 

In terms of comparision Brewer and Thabo should have been at an even level and right now Brewer has adjusted to the NBA level game faster as it seems. Im not saying that Thabo is a bust by any means as i still feel that he'll be a solid player in this league, but with where we're at as a team, we could surely use some solid production at the guard spot RIGHT NOW which Brewer could have given us. 

Imagine having Brewer come in off our bench to play 15 mins or so just slashing towards the basket whilst Noc is out on the 3 point line waiting to splash them. He is also strong enough to get hit and finish plays, and he seems to also be a very effective and strong defensive player also. 

If i could take one thing back that Paxson has done, it would have been not trading up to draft Thabo but to have just picked where we were at and drafted Ronnie Brewer. He is the real deal and i think he has the potential to be an all star one day, meaning that he could be really good as a starter throughout his career with a chance of cracking an all star team at one point in his career. At this point in time i can't say that for Thabo, i don't see him as a starter right now for any team though i can see him being a very good 6th man for alot of teams throughout his own career.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



andalusian said:


> On the offense on the other hand - Aldridge is already a beast. Just think how much easier it will be for him once Oden comes back. People will not be able to cheat off Pryzbilla to double Aldridge as they do now...


That offense will be nasty. Basically the opposing frontline has to decide if they want to get dunked on by oden or shot over by LaMarcus. They'll win rings.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



kulaz3000 said:


> To be honest im more fussed about not drafting Ronnie Brewer.
> 
> Tyrus obviously is less experienced in terms of playing basketball than LaMarcus and has alot to catch up on just simple fundamentals of the game. Sure, LaMarcus has the head start against Tyrus, but i think he will slowly but gradually even up with him in due time. Add to the fact that Tyrus has much potential and all the physical tools to be a great player in this league, whether he has the mentally to put it all together remains to be seen.
> 
> ...


I agree, Brewer has the potential to be 'Josh-Howard' like @ the SG position but I have seen flashes from Thabo that would suggest that he could one day be just as special.

So with that said it's Aldridge/Brewer vs. TT/Sefolosha. If you had to start over, which would u choose?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

Didn't like the trade then, and growing to hate it now. 

Seems like Pax was seduced by the mentality of not passing up a superstar, just to fulfill a need, as if fulfilling a need with an early pick is a ticket to failure.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



The ROY said:


> I agree, Brewer has the potential to be 'Josh-Howard' like @ the SG position but I have seen flashes from Thabo that would suggest that he could one day be just as special.
> 
> So with that said it's Aldridge/Brewer vs. TT/Sefolosha. If you had to start over, which would u choose?


Im not sure if you remember but i was on the bandwagon for Aldridge/Brewer from the start. Only thing i had doubts about was the fact of whether Brewer would still be available when we picked which he was.

I just think the Aldridge/Brewer could have helped "right now". We're are a team thats primed and ready to win. Win a Championship.. ahhhh i don't know, we're still inexperienced in big time playoff games i think. But to contend, sure. I still think we need atleast one or two more years of battling at a Easter Conference Finals level of competition before we're ready to take the crown away from a Western Conference team. But having Aldridge/Brewer would have helped that which is my point. 

Thats not to say that i don't like Tyrus/Thabo. Tyrus is just a special player in terms of just natural talents and instincts, but whether he can put it all together is still up in the air. With Thabo, he has the physical tools but he just doesn't seem to have that personality to want to beat down on somebody for a winning advantage. 

We may have regretted not taking Tyrus in 5 years time, but during that time i think we would have been very happy with the LaMarcus and Brewer combo if it had of been.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



R-Star said:


> Your right. Taking the time to post facts with you and Sloth seems worthy of my time.
> 
> Seeing as how your facts are, "Tyrus is better, LaMarcus doesnt look that great. If Tyrus was on Portland, he'd be putting up way better stats", I dont really see the point.
> 
> ...


what the hell are you talking about? Do you seriously not understand how certain players can put up better stats when they're on lousy teams than they would on contending teams? In my opinion, looking at both players, Tyrus has shown more overall skill and importance to his team (one that wins) than aldridge has with the blazers. I suppose you think Brandon Roy would have won rookie of the year if he played for the bulls las year since he did as well as he did playing with the blazers. Tyrus is a more complete player. Aldridge got 27 and 3 tonight, eh? I'll bet you your computer and internet access that the next time tyrus plays 36 minutes he'll put up at least 15 pts to go with 10+ boards and 3 blocks but on a WINNING TEAM. im tired. goodnight.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

The only way for Tyrus Thomas to catch up to Aldrige is on the defensive end. As it stands right now, TT will not even reach what Aldrige has already become on offense at any point of TT's career. Scoring 27 points almost entirely against Tim Duncan was very impressive. I doubt he can play like this every night this year. However if he ever becomes consistent, he can probably average over 24 points a night easily and that is extremely rare nowadays for an inside player.

And to the guy above me. It has nothing to do with which team Aldridge is playing on at least for this past game. He had Tim Duncan guarding him for almost the entire night and still got 27. Also the ways that Aldridge scored wasn't fluke shots. They were off well developed post moves along with a good looking jumpshot. I don't care which team you play on, that is an impressive feat regardless.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

I still complain about this trade to my friends to this day. There just wasn't a reason to draft Tyrus over Aldridge. He had bust written all over him. Big hype, high energy, low skills type of player. At the time and still I can't really understand what Paxson was thinking. Especially when he planned on going after Wallace, why would you not get Aldridge who can score inside? It just doesn't make sense.

After watching Tyrus for a season I can see that he put in work and if he can continue to add muscle, keep working on the jumper, and stop being such a bonehead with the ball, he will end up being a good player.

But keeping Aldridge would have taken us from a fringe-contender (what we still are with Tyrus) to a balanced, legitimate contender. I just don't get it. I'll never understand. I hate Paxson for this.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*

I hate to take part in a sulking thread but damn the kid is good. I too was on the Aldridge/Brewer band wagon and I am in pain right now. 

If I were GM I would've taken...... Kirk, and Du where they were.

I wanted Deng at 3 and liked Iguodala more than Ben, but had no idea who Nocioni was.

I would not have traded Chandler, I like the Noah pick.

In me I trust.

Chandler/ Noah
Deng / FA
Aldridge/ FA
Iguodala/Brewer
Hinrich/Duhon


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



Sham said:


> Aldridge's defensive effort was unusually abysmal tonight. His offense was stylin' though.


co-sign


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: The first LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game thread*



McBulls said:


> Aldridge could run circles around Curry during a fast break and still beat him down the floor.


Ummm, no.


Curry's greatest defensive gift is camping out in the low-block, because it means the shot-clock expires by the time the penetrating guard detours around him.

Circles? Physically impossible.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Brewer looked very good in the bit I watched but didn't show any PG skills during that time. He looked more like a SF. 

Thabo, at his ceiling, may be a better fit next to Gordon.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I don't know if TT and Thabo will get to the level that LMA and Brewer are at right now, let along be better, but one thing is for sure:

TT and Thabo would have the opportunity to get tons more run at Portland and Utah respectively.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Brewer had a hell of an impressive game, I'll just say that.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



Mebarak said:


> Like always, Paxson should have listened to me. I was one of the very few on this board that actually wanted Aldridge, and really wanted nothing to do with tyrus. if Paxson just listened to me, looking at my impeccable draft scouting (Dwyane Wade; Luol Deng; LaMarcus Aldridge). The guys I pick always turn out to be good, and not just good, allstar good...superstar good. Paxson has done some good things. No real qualms about Hinrich, since he was my #2 option for the Bulls (and only logical option after Wade). The one pick Paxson made that I wasn't too privy on was the Gordon one, I was just happy that draft because we ended up with Deng. That one turned out good, so kudos to Paxson on him. But like usual, he should have went with my draft choice.


Thought you would have been equally happy with the 'Stache as our pick? :biggrin:

I only remember ROY and myself being on the Aldridge bandwagon, with a few converters coming over a few weeks before draft time.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



kulaz3000 said:


> Im not sure if you remember but i was on the bandwagon for Aldridge/Brewer from the start. Only thing i had doubts about was the fact of whether Brewer would still be available when we picked which he was.
> 
> I just think the Aldridge/Brewer could have helped "right now". We're are a team thats primed and ready to win. Win a Championship.. ahhhh i don't know, we're still inexperienced in big time playoff games i think. But to contend, sure. I still think we need atleast one or two more years of battling at a Easter Conference Finals level of competition before we're ready to take the crown away from a Western Conference team. But having Aldridge/Brewer would have helped that which is my point.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I remember. I know my outlook on Alridge/Thomas changed from day to day until I saw Aldridge fold in their elite 8 game. That's when I thought he was just to soft for our team.

I ALWAYS wanted Brewer though, at the time, we knew nothing about Thabo.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*

Utah has FOUND their starting 2-guard and the funny part is, it seems as if Sloan used the same mentality on Ronnie as he did on Deron. Didn't play either much their first year although both were heralded coming out of college. Ronnie's looking like a freaking MIP candidate since preseason :

18 pts (8-14 FG)
4 stls
2 asts
2 rebs
27 min

Their team is SICK from PG to C.

G Williams
G Brewer
F Kirilenko
F Boozer
C Okur

They'll win ATLEAST 1 ring. I can tell you that now. Let us not forget that they've got a guy on the Bench that could start for a GOOD amount of teams in the NBA in Paul Millsap. he put up 16 & 10 off the bench last night and looks to be even better THIS season.

Forget it, I'm saying it, Pax MESSED UP & it's his fault now that we've been so little. He's still a great GM but he HAS made his mistakes.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*

I will say this though, he took a risk on a SUPERIOR talent. He figured TT would be the superstar out of the draft and there's nothing wrong with that. I applaud him because we all felt at the time that he kept going with 'safe' picks.

I'm still excited about TT but the thought of us being further along with Aldridge is a bit dissapointing @ the current time.

But it was amazing to watch last night that it came to a point where the Spurs could do NOTHING but double him last night or he probably would of put up 40.

But don't worry, this isn't something I plan to harp on all season. I'm not that type of poster


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*



The ROY said:


> I will say this though, he took a risk on a SUPERIOR talent. He figured TT would be the superstar out of the draft and there's nothing wrong with that. I applaud him because we all felt at the time that he kept going with 'safe' picks.


This post deserves to be stickied.

Well done, and enjoy the rep.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*



The ROY said:


> Utah has FOUND their starting 2-guard and the funny part is, it seems as if Sloan used the same mentality on Ronnie as he did on Deron. Didn't play either much their first year although both were heralded coming out of college. Ronnie's looking like a freaking MIP candidate since preseason :
> 
> 18 pts (8-14 FG)
> 4 stls
> ...


ROY, are you sure there are enough championship rings to go around for all these teams that are pre-destined to win a title? 

I have to admit though, Alridge's offense last night was slammin' 

On defense, I didn't notice him.......but I guess that's the problem. He did seem pretty active at times though. I thought his shot-blocking instincts seemed pretty good. Him and Oden would seem like a very good pair together. If he's able to recover completely from injury, that's a mighty good frontcourt. 

I was also impressed with Martell Webster. His jumpshot is water. Maybe he's finally starting to pan out? 

Travis Outlaw looks like the stereotype of a guy who has all-world athelticism, but lacks the basketball skills to put it to good use. 

Sergio Rodriguez is a nifty passer, but he doesn't look good enough to ever be a starter.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*



The ROY said:


> [Utah] is SICK from PG to C.
> 
> G Williams
> G Brewer
> ...


They looked awesome last night. The whole team lead by Williams and Boozer has an attack-the-rim mentality that is sorely missing on the Bulls (TT excluded).


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: It's Official : I Wish We Kept LaMarcus*



FrankTheTank said:


> Based on less than a half of seeing him play this season I would have to say I disagree. I'm watching this guy closely just because he's on my fantasy team and I'm not all that impressed. Just think about how Tyrus would be performing if he was on a team like Portland. I think he'd be doing quite a bit better than aldridge. And aldridge would be on the Bulls bench far more than Tyrus has been. LaMarcus is in a good situation in Portland and I think he'll do alright but I don't regret that trade at all.


I....I....I....I....am left NEARLY speechless.

Give me some of what you are smokin, cause I want to see fairies and angels too....

Hey, all in good fun. You are certainly welcome to your opinion. No really, keep it.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*



rosenthall said:


> ROY, are you sure there are enough championship rings to go around for all these teams that are pre-destined to win a title?
> 
> .


I'd think so...since most of these guys will probably play atleast 15 seasons..

The Raps, Blazers & Jazz are three teams I think that will definintely win a ring in that period.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Here is an old thread from a year ago about this:

http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/318979-hindsight-20-20-a.html

The puzzle that was Chicago's draft last year is not based on hindsight. It was a puzzle from day one. The draft of this summer only added to the puzzle.

The puzzle is essentially this: Do the Bulls want to win now or not? If yes, why do they draft projects and guys that duplicate what is already on the roster? If no, then what was the point getting Ben Wallace and his short window?



Masbee from 11-06 said:


> At the time and in hindsight, I was thrilled that the Bulls wanted Thomas and made that trade. It was cute of them to force the Blazers to cough up Khryapa by grabbing our pick. But, who knows, they may have saved us by keeping Charlotte from taking LaMarcus and making some other deal. Anywho, we got the guy who had been #1 on my personal draft board for an entire year leading up to the draft.
> 
> As for the Bulls moves:
> 
> Drafting Thomas seemed a mistake to me. Similar to the Pistons getting Darko, using the logic that a "project" with a big upside is better to stash, then grabbing a player to help now that might "mess with chemistry on want/need playing time". I don't understand that line of thinking. The Bulls are in a win now mode. Why they didn't seriously consider Roy, Morrison or even LaMarcus is a puzzle.


More TT vs LA talk from this summer:

http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...partner-oden-aldridge-more-ideal-wallace.html


Yet again
http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...in-championship-frontcourt-wallace-tyrus.html



Masbee 8-07 said:


> The 2007 Bulls are not a well put together team. I see them as a work in progress, that the GM (bizarrely) sat and starred at the easel. Lots of talent, young and old, has moved locations recently or is still on the market. The Bulls are still sitting on a mis-matched roster. Strange....
> 
> But, if a deal were to be done, what only makes sense is the Bulls obtain Kobe (a now player) with their youth and potential. If that kind of deal can't be worked out, then don't do it.
> 
> And if the Bulls don't pull the trigger on somebody, I will forever never understand why the signed Big Ben and traded Tyson Chandler for what turned out to be nothing.


I guess I keep repeating myself. Not being a Bulls fan, I am not steeped in the details, but I can't get my head around what the Bulls are doing (or not doing). It seems to me they had an opportunity to build one of the great young teams of the last decade, and passed on that. Hinrich, Iggy, Deng, Aldridge or Thomas, Chandler. Nope. That was seemingly too easy. So, they go in another direction, get a vet free agent (which was effectively trading Chandler for Wallace). They have Gordon, not Iggy, and Gordon wants big money. Fine, trade him and other stuff for KG, Gasol, Kobe, whatever. Nope. Pass on all that, let PJ's expiring walk. Draft yet ANOTHER no offense, hustling, defending big man. Ummmm, call me stupid, but I just don't get it.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: The one and only LaMarcus Aldridge had a good game / I Wish We Kept LaMarcus thr*



Masbee said:


> They have Gordon, not Iggy, and Gordon wants big money. Fine, trade him and other stuff for KG, Gasol, Kobe, whatever. Nope. Pass on all that, let PJ's expiring walk. Draft yet ANOTHER no offense, hustling, defending big man. Ummmm, call me stupid, but I just don't get it.


Last year's decision not to trade for Gasol I totally understand (and I am not a Bulls fan either) - they had to give NY's pick in a deep draft that had 2 potential superstars in it. Sorry, but if you have a chance to land one of them with a playoffs team - you do not roll the dice on Gasol - good as he is.

As for the Tyrus vs. Aldridge thing - I have to admit that I am surprised as well since they did just sign Wallace - but what do I know?


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

this is an interesting debate that seems to have several threads on several websites over the last year or so. Maybe that's because the actual 'answer' won't be known for a year or more. And then it still may be open to debate.

I'm a blazer fan, and I've seen Aldridge play at least 35 games so far. I've only seen TT play 8 or 9 times, so I'm not nearly as familiar with him. And in those games TT only really showed much in 2 or 3 games. By the way, it may just be me but it seemed Skiles has an even faster 'hook' then Nate when it comes to rookies...and I know nate's is fast.

Obviously then, I'm thinking Aldridge is definitely better. And since I know portland didn't appear on national TV once last year, I'm thinking most bulls fans haven't seen enough of Aldridge to make all the definitive statements on him they are making.

Accordingly, my impression of TT (that of a hustling player capable of good defense, but also capable of playing out of control sometimes, and with a limited offensive game at this point) may be based on incomplete information, but at least with the advantage of seeing TT play in more games then is true of the majority of bulls fans as far as watching Aldridge play. Still, I'm not comfortable making definitive statements on TT.

So if Bulls fans are happy with TT, I have to assume that's based on the same type of familiarity with his game that blazers fans have with LMA's game. And discussion isn't going to make any converts to either side. That will be up to LMA and TT.

A couple of things I do wonder about. I've seen bulls fans say TT is 6'9 to 6'10. At the Orlando camp TT was measured at 6'7.25 w/o shoes and 6'8.25 with shoes. I guess he must have grown a bit; that's not unusual as the blazers reported this summer that LMA had grown to 6'11 w/o shoes and was 7'0.25 with shoes. They are both relatively young after all. The other thing said about TT is that he has "freakish athleticism". He does look athletic, but at that orlando camp the 'cerebral' Brandon Roy outjumped TT ( 34" for each in standing vert & a 40.5" to 39.5" advantage for roy in the max vert.) Obviously TT's superior reach will amplify his jumping ability, especially during on-court play, but aren't "freakish athleticism" and other such labels a bit of an overstatement?...especially considering the many superior athletes in the NBA?


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

Hey Bulls fans I know how you feel too later regret a high draft pick. We passed on Chris Paul and Deron Williams to take Martell Webster. 

I was ecstatic we got Lamarcus, he would have been my #1 pick. But then I really wanted Gay instead of Roy so who knows, its an imperfect science.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

For a one game sample this year, LA is clearly the better player. I'd say for all of last year, too, though some Bulls fans would argue otherwise.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> For a one game sample this year, LA is clearly the better player. I'd say for all of last year, too, though some Bulls fans would argue otherwise.




Not at all. Since the Bulls are so much better than the Blazers Aldridge wouldn't have even played in last nights game according to a lot of people in this forum. So in reality...er Bulls fans reality, TT is still way better than Aldridge.

Thomas would have dropped 30 on Duncan if Aldridge scored 27


----------

