# LaMarcus Aldridge - Is ther ANY Doubt



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

Is there ANY doubt in ANYONE'S mind, other than Nate's, that LaMarcus Aldridge deserves more PT than Joel and Magloire combined?

Even before he completly outplayed them both again tonight(which he does every time he's given significant minutes), he already had a higher player effeciency rating than either of them - and that margin just got wider.

Yes, he is a rookie. Yes, he will make rookie mistakes and occasionally get abused by bigger, stronger, smarter vets, but that's part of the learning process. Let him go through it NOW and get it over with. Delaying it only hurts his progress. It's not like Joel (0 pts. and 3 reb. with as many fouls as rebounds and more TOs than blocks) and Jamaal (the Human Turn Over) are helping us "win now".

Joel doesn't fit well at all in Nate's system (hey Nate, ever heard of a nifty little two-man play called the "pick 'n roll"?) and Magloire isn't in this team's future plans. Yet, Joel continues to start and Magloire is being "showcased". This hurts the team long term, and after tonight, I'm convinced, more than ever, it hurts them short term as well. So, I say start LaMarcus Aldridge and play him 30 minutes a game for the rest of the season. I see absolutely no reason not to.

BNM


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

i think LMA will pan out to be the best player in the 06' draft. hands down.

...but we will have to wait a couple years. roy is great now, but over time LMA will have an even greater impact. a bright future indeed granted the team doesnt **** up our roster in the coming years.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

He was checking TD quite a bit this game too. 

I just love his stroke. It looks just like 'Sheed's. He should have no trouble extending his perimeter game to the 3pt line.


----------



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

ryanjend22 said:


> i think LMA will pan out to be the best player in the 06' draft. hands down.
> 
> ...but we will have to wait a couple years. roy is great now, but over time LMA will have an even greater impact. a bright future indeed granted the team doesnt **** up our roster in the coming years.


So, why postpone his greatness by burying on the bench behind two hacks with far inferior "talent" (and I use the word loosely here)?

Chris Bosh was both shorter and skinnier than LMA. Yet he started 63 games and averaged 33.5 mpg his rookie year. Doing so didn't hinder his development, it accelerated it.

Rasheed was also skinnier his rookie year, yet he started 56 games and averaged 27.5 mpg as a rookie.

What exactly are we saving him for? It sure isn't the play-offs. Play him, play him now and play him a lot. The more they play him now, the sooner he will reach his full potential. It's not like he has two future Hall of Famers playing in front of him. OK Nate, he's paid his dues. Making him continue to sit behind two hacks isn't going to teach him anything positive at this point. It won't build his confidince, it won't improve his character. It will only make him think his coach is a clueless idiot.

BNM


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i think they are testing him to see if they can make some trades: jamaal and zbo in different trades...


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, why postpone his greatness by burying on the bench behind two hacks with far inferior "talent" (and I use the word loosely here)?
> 
> Chris Bosh was both shorter and skinnier than LMA. Yet he started 63 games and averaged 33.5 mpg his rookie year. Doing so didn't hinder his development, it accelerated it.
> 
> ...


Good lord. He's had basically 3-4 good games. One was the last game, which led him to get more minutes in tonight's game. Tonight's game will lead to more time in the game tomorrow, etc, etc, etc. 

All he has to do is play well and he'll get big playing time. Have some patience and stop crying.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Chris Bosh was both shorter and skinnier than LMA. Yet he started 63 games and averaged 33.5 mpg his rookie year. *Doing so didn't hinder his development, it accelerated it*.
> *
> Rasheed was also skinnier his rookie year*, yet he started 56 games and averaged 27.5 mpg as a rookie.
> 
> What exactly are we saving him for? It sure isn't the play-offs. Play him, play him now and play him a lot. The more they play him now, the sooner he will reach his full potential. It's not like he has two future Hall of Famers playing in front of him. OK Nate, he's paid his dues. Making him continue to sit behind two hacks isn't going to teach him anything positive at this point. It won't build his confidince, it won't improve his character. *It will only make him think his coach is a clueless idiot*.


I hate it when people dress up their guesses as fact and I don't happen to think any of these guesses are right either. LaMarcus's quotes about playing behind Jamal and Joel this year indicate he knows why he's last in line and that he's comfortable with this knowing his time will come. I think it's entirely likely that his role will greatly increase following the trade deadline. Regardless I'm not nearly as impatient with this situation as I know this isn't the year the for the club to try to maximize it's potencial. Next year I expect a very different approach... but thats just my guess.

STOMP


----------



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

STOMP said:


> I hate it when people dress up their guesses as fact and I don't happen to think any of these guesses are right either. LaMarcus's quotes about playing behind Jamal and Joel this year indicate he knows why he's last in line and that he's comfortable with this knowing his time will come. I think it's entirely likely that his role will greatly increase following the trade deadline. Regardless I'm not nearly as impatient with this situation as I know this isn't the year the for the club to try to maximize it's potencial. Next year I expect a very different approach... but thats just my guess.
> 
> STOMP


Not sure why you bolded my comments about Bosh and Rasheed. They are facts and easily verifiable. Not dressing up anything.

And the comment about Nate was meant as a joke.

Still why delay his development until next year. Play him now and watch him get better THIS YEAR. Young players need PT to get better. LaMarcus Aldridge, not Jamaal Magloire figures prominently in the future of this franchise. "Showcasing" Magloire accomplishes NOTHING. His trade value is what it is - his expiring contract and that doesn't change whether you play him 40 mpg or ZERO.

BNM


----------



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

Fork said:


> Good lord. He's had basically 3-4 good games. One was the last game, which led him to get more minutes in tonight's game. Tonight's game will lead to more time in the game tomorrow, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> All he has to do is play well and he'll get big playing time. Have some patience and stop crying.


And how many "good games" has Jamaal Magloire had? How many "good games" has Joel Przybilla had?

LaMarcus was playing better than Magloire back when Joel was injured. If PT was based on performance, it would have been Magloire, not Aldridge who was benched when Joel returned.

Yet Magloire is the one rewarded with playing time because they are "showcasing" him.

BNM


----------



## TheBlueDoggy (Oct 5, 2004)

I have doubt.


----------



## ProZach (Oct 13, 2005)

Fork said:


> Good lord. He's had basically 3-4 good games. One was the last game, which led him to get more minutes in tonight's game. Tonight's game will lead to more time in the game tomorrow, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> All he has to do is play well and he'll get big playing time. Have some patience and stop crying.



I have to agree. LA missed summer league, preseason, and the first bit of the season with an injury. That's a hard route to take as a rookie. He's had to learn Nate's system and life in the NBA, all while recovering from injury. If you'll remember, everyone back then agreed that Nate would probably bring him along slowly for AT LEAST the first half of the season. Well, we're not to the half-way point yet... So calm down.

I agree he's looked great recently despite everything, and Nate IS giving him the minutes over the last three games, so what exactly are you complaining about now? That he's only playing 31 & 23 minutes instead of 35 & 40??? 

I doubt Nate will start him anytime soon, but he'll probably continue to get more minutes. Magloire and especially Joel just aren't doing enough to warant more playing time. The job is there for the taking, but you need to be realistic and realize it will take more than 3-4 good games for Nate to hand the starting job to a rookie...


----------



## TLo (Dec 27, 2006)

We *have *to showcase Magloire. It's the only way we might get something of value for him. If we don't it's no big deal as we'll play LMA most of the minutes after Feb. 22nd. This is a non-issue in my opinion.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Fork said:


> Good lord. He's had basically 3-4 good games. One was the last game, which led him to get more minutes in tonight's game. Tonight's game will lead to more time in the game tomorrow, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> All he has to do is play well and he'll get big playing time. Have some patience and stop crying.


:clap:

The last two games LMA has played more minutes than either of the other center options. I didn't like seeing him getting DNPs, but I don't really know what that was about. All I know is that Nate's given him minutes and he's played like he deserved them. I'll leave that to others to pretend they know which is the cause and which is the effect. I'm just glad Aldridge was clearly working hard in practice (particularly on his post moves) and not sitting around crying about his minutes as much as some of the fans seem to.


----------



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

ProZach said:


> I agree he's looked great recently despite everything, and Nate IS giving him the minutes over the last three games, so what exactly are you complaining about now? That he's only playing 31 & 23 minutes instead of 35 & 40???


And in the 10 games before that he got a TOTAL of 39 minutes. The only reason he got back into the rotation was Outlaw's injury opened up a spot for him. 



ProZach said:


> I doubt Nate will start him anytime soon, but he'll probably continue to get more minutes. Magloire and especially Joel just aren't doing enough to warant more playing time. The job is there for the taking, but you need to be realistic and realize it will take more than 3-4 good games for Nate to hand the starting job to a rookie...


He started him for seven games back when Joel was injured and he played well then - certainly better than either Magloire or Joel. Anyone who thinks Aldridge has only had three or four "good games" and that they've all come recently has a very short term memory.

I know there is more to the game than scoring, but in 36 games, Magloire has scored in double figures three times. In 23 games Joel hasn't scored in double figures once - I repeat not even once. In 27 games (including 8 where he played less than 10 minutes), LaMarcus Aldridge has scored in double figures ten times. In the 13 games he's played at least 20 minutes, Aldridge has scored in double figures 9 times. 

Joel is a total non-factor offensively in Nate's system (as his 2.2ppg scoring average indicates). Jamaal Magloire isn't exactly putting up huge offensive number either (5.3 ppg). Aldridge is quite clearly already the superior offensive player.

Throw in the fact that he's also an above average defender and and a decent rebounder, and it makes little sense to give his minutes to either Joel or Jamaal.

If he was good enough to start seven games back when Joel was injured, why did he get buried DEEP on the bench when Joel returned and why isn't he good enough to start now when he's playing even better than before?

Stop "showcasing" Magloire and give the minutes to the guy who is the best player NOW and the player who is destined to be a cornerstone of this franchise for the next decade. Stop retarding his development by giving his minutes to someone less deserving.

BNM


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

Lamarcus should start.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

TLo said:


> We *have *to showcase Magloire. It's the only way we might get something of value for him. If we don't it's no big deal as we'll play LMA most of the minutes after Feb. 22nd. This is a non-issue in my opinion.


The idea of showcasing him is is silly. We aren't going to trick any teams into a taking him just because he's getting more playing time. Teams have years of scouting, footage and stats that they will make their trade decision on. They know exactly what they are getting whether he's playing 1 minute or 30 minutes. 

This is a case of Nate trying to make all the players happy. The problem with that is when you try to please everybody, you are really please nobody.

Maglore could really help some teams in the East, but we all know his real value is the expiring contract.


----------



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

TLo said:


> We *have *to showcase Magloire. It's the only way we might get something of value for him.


No we don't. Magloire is what he is. A big body with an $8 million expiring contract. Showcasing him changes NOTHING. His value is already determined. In fact, if anything, playing him is hurting his value.

*IF* he is traded it will be because someone REALLY wants his expiring contract, not his 5.5 ppg and 5.5 rpg.

BNM


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

TLo said:


> We *have *to showcase Magloire. It's the only way we might get something of value for him. If we don't it's no big deal as we'll play LMA most of the minutes after Feb. 22nd. This is a non-issue in my opinion.


Have to? Not.

We're going to let him expire - take the salary reduction.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> not sitting around crying about his minutes as much as some of the fans seem to.


No sure if that was directed at me, but I'm not crying about anything, just stating what I think is painfully obvious:

LaMarcus Aldridge is aready a far better player than either Joel Przybilla or Jamaal Magloire. That fact alone should mean he gets more PT than either of them NOW, not next year or after the trade deadline.

BNM


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I am going to throw this bone out there. People talk about showcasing Magloire to get something for him. What exactly are we looking at getting? The only guys I see who are out there are Magette, and maybe some guys off of NJ, and I don't see a trade for Magloire, even if he averaged 20 points a game and 10 rebounds for 4 night straight, getting any of that. Some people say draft picks. I haven't even heard a sniff of anybody offering draft picks for Jamaal. So what the hell are we waiting for?

Counting the days until the trade deadline....


----------



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

hasoos said:


> Some people say draft picks. I haven't even heard a sniff of anybody offering draft picks for Jamaal. So what the hell are we waiting for?


And, with those draft picks you have to take back ~$8 million per year in bad contracts. If I had Paul Allen's money, I'd do it, if the draft pick was high enough, but NOBODY is going to give up an unprotected pick in the upcoming draft unless they get a proven STAR (i.e. NOT Jamaal Magloire) in return.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Not sure why you bolded my comments about Bosh and Rasheed. They are facts and easily verifiable. Not dressing up anything.


I bolded your comments because they are mostly your speculation... I thought I was pretty clear on that.

At his predraft Chris Bosh measured 6'10.5 barefoot and weighed in at 225. LA was 6'10 and weighed 234 at his. So far you were half right. Wallace came into the league before the pre-draft stuff was made public. If you've got a legit height and weight source from those days I'd love it if you'd share your verifiable source.

The line about playing Bosh a lot in his rookie year speeding his up his developement is only speculation on your part... there is no way to verify that at all. For all we know he would be a better player today if he had not been spoon fed so much PT early on. It is absolutely impossible to conclusively prove that there is a best way to develop young talent. The fact of the matter is that star players come in all shapes and sizes and take a variety of paths to achieve their success. I'm pleased as punch with LaMarcus's showing so far and am hoping to see him dominate down the line. I don't think that playing an extra 10-15 minutes a game his rookie year will make much of a difference... I do think learning the NBA big man game from coaches/teammates and fine tuning his body through nutrition and proper physical training will make a huge difference. Thats what I'm mostly concerned about him doing this first year.

STOMP


----------



## BiggaAdams (Nov 10, 2006)

Well its obvious once we get rid of Magloire, we'll have a nice rotation up front. We need to find a way to get Raef involved with this team, we could use his 3pt shooting and getting him to backup Zach would be good for this team. Joel should continue starting, but him and Aldridge should split minutes, and Aldridge should be out there at crunch time. If both get in some kind of foul trouble, you slide Raef on over.

Im loving what I'm seeing from Aldridge, he may not be strong right now but he will get stronger, and when he does he'll be even better.


----------



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

STOMP said:


> At his predraft Chris Bosh measured 6'10.5 barefoot and weighed in at 225. LA was 6'10 and weighed 234 at his. So far you were half right.


I was going by their draft profiles at nba.com.

http://www.nba.com/draft2006/profiles/LaMarcusAldridge.html

http://www.nba.com/draft2003/profiles/BoshChris.html

Bosh is listed at 6'10" 210 lbs. and Aldridge is listed at 6'11' 240 lbs.

The Bulls 2003 predraft page lists Bosh at 6'10.25", 225 lbs. without shoes and a wingspan of 7'3.5"

Aldridge's wingspan was measured at 7'4.75"

Point is Aldridge the rookie was bigger than Bosh the rookie. Personally, I think people saying Aldridge needs to "bulk up" before he is ready to play is utter nonsense. Regardless of which numbers you want to quote, Aldridge is plenty big enough to play with the big boys in the NBA. He's put on some weight and bulk already (officially listed at 245 lbs. these days) and I'd rather have him long and lean and able to run the court like a small forward than fat and slow like Magloire.



STOMP said:


> Wallace came into the league before the pre-draft stuff was made public. If you've got a legit height and weight source from those days I'd love it if you'd share your verifiable source.


It's hard to find anything online from 1995. Here's the only thing I could find. It lists him as 6'10" 225 lbs. Sounds about right. When Sheed came into the league, he was long and lanky, like Bosh and Aldridge. Sheed is currently listed at 230 lbs. That may be on the low side of reality, as he's certianly gained a little weight over the last 11 and a half years since he was drafted, but I've never seen a weight listed for Rasheed as high as Aldridge's current 245 lbs. (or even his predraft weight of 234 lbs.).

Again point being Aldridge the rookie had more bulk than Sheed the rookie. Again, this refutes the common claims that Aldridge needs to bulk up before he'll be ready for the NBA. What he needs is PT. Bosh got it as a rookie and so did Sheed. Why not Aldridge?



STOMP said:


> The line about playing Bosh a lot in his rookie year speeding his up his developement is only speculation on your part... there is no way to verify that at all.


You're absolutely right. I have no way to prove 100% beyond all doubt that getting significant PT as a rookie accelerated Chris Bosh's development. But, do you honestly believe he would have developed as rapidly (all-star his third season) if he would have racked up a slew of DNP CDs and average 3.9 MPG? That's how Nate was using Aldridge for the 10 games prior to Travis Outlaw's injury. 



STOMP said:


> I don't think that playing an extra 10-15 minutes a game his rookie year will make much of a difference...


And guess what, that's only speculation on _your_ part. You have no way to verify it and you never will. It's called an opinion. You're entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine. In this case, I strongly disagree. IMHO the best way to learn the game is to play the game against the best players in the world. 

Yes, he will learn some during practice, but given the hectic schedule and travel involved, practice time is limited during the NBA season. I'd much rather see him get significant minute during the season and continue to work on his strength, conditioning and individual skills during the off season. By all accounts, he has a good work ethic and attitude. He'll likely continue to practice just as hard even if his PT increases. So, why not give him the benefit of learning boh in ehe games and during practice? I don't see how that could possible harm his development in any way, and IMHO will greatly accelerate it

BNM


----------



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

BiggaAdams said:


> Well its obvious once we get rid of Magloire, we'll have a nice rotation up front.
> 
> Why wait? We could have that same rotation today if Nate is willing to cut Magloire's minutes and continue to plat Aldridge like he has the last three game instead of the 39 total minutes he played in the previous 10 games.
> 
> ...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> No sure if that was directed at me, but I'm not crying about anything, just stating what I think is painfully obvious:
> 
> LaMarcus Aldridge is aready a far better player than either Joel Przybilla or Jamaal Magloire. That fact alone should mean he gets more PT than either of them NOW, not next year or after the trade deadline.
> 
> BNM


Not you specifically BNM, but everyone around here who complains day after day about Aldridge's minutes. I think Aldridge's own attitude about his PT stands in stark contrast to the histrionics we see in here. From what he has said to the press, he seems to understand that young guys do have to earn their time, and instead of complaining he's clearly worked on his skills, his knowledge of the playbook and he's been hitting the weights hard. There's been plenty for him to work out outside of actual games.

Although, the last couple games Aldridge has played great. Nate, for his part, has rewarded him with more minutes than any of the other centers. Did you notice that? _If_ LMA keeps it up then I'll agree with you that it's "painfully obvious" he's our best center. He hasn't been all along, contrary to popular belief, but at the rate he's improving he is or soon will be the unequivocal leader of the pack, and Nate will go on feeding him minutes as he earns them.

People in here say that keeping Aldridge out of the games stunts his development, and that Nate isn't playing him, but what I've seen is that LMA has continued to develop in practice and Nate's rewarding him with minutes. What is there to freak out about exactly?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I could understand if Aldridge got bench because he just wasn't playing well. But look at his game log:
http://www.nba.com/playerfile/lamarcus_aldridge/game_by_game_stats.html

He was benched for 10 games for no real reason that I can see. We only won 4 of those games, so it's not like the team did a lot better with him not on the court. When he's been in he's been at least as good as Magloire, and often better. 
So why bench him at all? 

Then you look at other recent big men in the NBA: 

Amare Stoudemire averaged 31 mpg his first season. 
Bosh averaged 33 mpg his first season.
Gasol averaged 36 mpg his first season. 
Boozer averaged 25 mpg his first season. 
Howard averaged 32 mpg his first season.
Okafor averaged 35 mpg his first season.

Aldridge is averaging 17 mpg. 

Many of these guys didn't attend college for four years, so it's not like they'd all been better prepared for NBA life than Aldridge. Also, several of these guys weren't top two draft picks, so it's not like there were higher expectations for these guys. 

If you look at what most NBA teams are now doing with young big men, the evidence seems to be very much against the "learning from the bench" routine. Nate McMillan is definitely going against the convention of what most teams do when they get a young stud big man, and I can't see any reason for him to do so. 

Are all these other teams stupid? What does Nate know that they don't?


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

With adjusting to the longer season, MAYBE it IS shrewd to play rookies sparingly at the seasons start until they build up some stamina for the long haul of a 82 game season. Starting him from now on out would be fine with me though.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Good lord. He's had basically 3-4 good games. One was the last game, which led him to get more minutes in tonight's game. Tonight's game will lead to more time in the game tomorrow, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> All he has to do is play well and he'll get big playing time. Have some patience and stop crying.



Actually Aldridge has had about 15 good games. He's had 9 where he scored in double figures, and the others were when his coach decided he wasn't good enough to play ahead of Magloire. I took into account games where he played 4 minutes and scored 4 points on 2-2 shooting. To me that's a good game. 

It's absolutely unacceptable to me, and should be to everyone else that Nate isn't playing this kid huge minutes every night and just dealing with his rookie mistakes.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> I was going by their draft profiles at nba.com.


while it may be a fact that thats what they were listed at, we've had many examples of those sites being way off in their listings. In other words while verifiable those are not facts, verifiable fiction is more like it. 



> Point is Aldridge the rookie was bigger than Bosh the rookie.


Didn't we just establish that Aldridge is in fact shorter?



> Personally, I think people saying Aldridge needs to "bulk up" before he is ready to play is utter nonsense. Regardless of which numbers you want to quote, Aldridge is plenty big enough to play with the big boys in the NBA. He's put on some weight and bulk already (officially listed at 245 lbs. these days) and I'd rather have him long and lean and able to run the court like a small forward than fat and slow like Magloire.


It looks like we share some similar opinions on LA. btw... He was the guy I right here posting my online hopes that Portland would be able to draft for the last 3 seasons.



> It's hard to find anything online from 1995. Here's the only thing I could find. It lists him as 6'10" 225 lbs. Sounds about right. When Sheed came into the league, he was long and lanky, like Bosh and Aldridge. Sheed is currently listed at 230 lbs. That may be on the low side of reality, as he's certianly gained a little weight over the last 11 and a half years since he was drafted, but I've never seen a weight listed for Rasheed as high as Aldridge's current 245 lbs. (or even his predraft weight of 234 lbs.).


Again, those listing do not necessarily reflect reality. Easily verifiable yes but factual...



> You're absolutely right. I have no way to prove 100% beyond all doubt that getting significant PT as a rookie accelerated Chris Bosh's development. But, do you honestly believe he would have developed as rapidly (all-star his third season) if he would have racked up a slew of DNP CDs and average 3.9 MPG? That's how Nate was using Aldridge for the 10 games prior to Travis Outlaw's injury.


I absolutely believe what I wrote.



> And guess what, that's only speculation on _your_ part. You have no way to verify it and you never will. It's called an opinion. You're entitled to yours and I'm entitled to mine. In this case, I strongly disagree. IMHO the best way to learn the game is to play the game against the best players in the world.


right, my opinions I labeled as such. The facts I relayed I refered to as facts. Just to repeat my opening statement and why I responded, I find it disengenuous when people label their opinions as facts, especially when those opinions are incorrect or wild guesses. Having grown up in NC and raised on ACC hoops, I bet I had at least as much experience watching these guys as anyone here. 



> Yes, he will learn some during practice, but given the hectic schedule and travel involved, practice time is limited during the NBA season. I'd much rather see him get significant minute during the season and continue to work on his strength, conditioning and individual skills during the off season. By all accounts, he has a good work ethic and attitude. He'll likely continue to practice just as hard even if his PT increases. So, why not give him the benefit of learning boh in ehe games and during practice? I don't see how that could possible harm his development in any way, and IMHO will greatly accelerate it.


you're entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to restate what I hope he does this first year. 

Alright off to work!

STOMP


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

LaMarcus is 6'11 and a quarter inch in shoes, as per his pre-draft measurements. 6'10 without them.

http://www.insidehoops.com/draft-prospect-measurements.shtml


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

It's amazing to me that LMA gets more minutes than both Joel and Magloire, and people still ***** constantly.

If there's nothing to gain this year, why play LMA 48 minutes? You want to just bust open the injury jar this year and see what you find? I've agreed all along he should get minutes, but let's not get carried away and run him into the ground because of some ridiculous opinion that a full game every night will make him that much better a player than a mere 15-20 minutes.

And BNM, Joel isn't supposed to be an offensive threat, he's the guy that holds down the middle defensively. I could use the same argument for Joel that others use for LMA - it's hard to get a rhythm when you're played so sparingly and pulled in games.

Oh and, btw, LMA is a PF.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

TLo said:


> We *have *to showcase Magloire. It's the only way we might get something of value for him. If we don't it's no big deal as we'll play LMA most of the minutes after Feb. 22nd. This is a non-issue in my opinion.


I think this is probably the stupidest myth among message board fans. If the guy doesn't have any skill, what the hell good does it do to "showcase" his crappiness?

Wow, look at our big fat dolt who thinks he's Shaq but has the offensive skills of Chris Dudley. Give us a great player for him..

Is that 'player' we're going to get worth the DAMAGE Jamal does when he's on the court, to both the final score and the fans perception of the team? Stupid.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> It's amazing to me that LMA gets more minutes than both Joel and Magloire, and people still ***** constantly.
> 
> If there's nothing to gain this year, why play LMA 48 minutes? You want to just bust open the injury jar this year and see what you find? I've agreed all along he should get minutes, but let's not get carried away and run him into the ground because of some ridiculous opinion that a full game every night will make him that much better a player than a mere 15-20 minutes.
> 
> ...


I think you are missing the point. People are saying that after watching him get big minutes and produce in the last few games, why hasn't he been playing all along. 

As for your argument that LMA is a PF, thats your opinion. I tend to think of him as a versatile player capable of playing either depending on who the matchup is against. As of right now, there are not a whole ton of big centers who will kill you with him playing center, after all, how much damage is a Kaman, Curry, Muhammad, etc going to do? Not enough to make me fear them with a smaller center on the court. The only guys you really have to worry about at center are Shaq, Yao (and he isn't that physical). Phoenix runs Amare at center. Dallas runs big sections of the game with Dirk at center. Tim Duncan is no bigger and he plays center. As the league is evolving into more of a mobile game, I think the centers of the league will tend to evolve as well towards that style of play.


----------



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

STOMP said:


> Didn't we just establish that Aldridge is in fact shorter?


Yes, by 0.25" without shoes (according to the 2003 Chicago Bulls predraft web site), but since when does taller == bigger? Those same "verifible" sites also show Aldridge as heavier AND having a greater wingspan. Now, tell me who is bigger, Bosh and Aldridge.

And the point isn't that predraft Bosh as a measured 0.25" taller than predraft Aldridge. You are so focused on "proving" you are right that you are missing the real issue here. Nobody has been saying LaMarcus Aldridge it too short to play in the NBA. His critics have been saying he needs to bulk up when the facts, yes even your "verifible" facts show that he, as a rookie, has more bulk than Bosh did as a rookie. If anything, the fact that the Bosh is both taller AND lighter shows that he is indeed skinnier than the shorter, heavier Aldridge.

So, back to the point. Chris Bosh, as a rookie, was lighter and less bulky than LaMarcus Aldridge. He was also younger. As a rookie, Bosh started the majority of his teams games, played 33.5 MPG and had a very successful rookie season. He has continued to improve since and became an all-star in his third season. If the lighter, less bulky Bosh was able to play big minutes and have success as a rookie, why can't LaMarcus Aldridge? Why does Aldridge only average 17 MPG on a lottery bound team? 



STOMP said:


> I find it disengenuous when people label their opinions as facts, especially when those opinions are incorrect or wild guesses.


Oh please, come down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed. Incorrect, wild guesses? I didn't make those number up, they are not my opinion. I used figures from the official NBA web site. How is that a wild guess. You may think those numbers are wrong, but how is that my fault. You're shooting the messanger.

Alright, let's turn the tables. Find ONE site ANYWHERE that shows Chris Bosh or Rasheed Wallace weighing more than LaMarcus Aldridge. 

In your overzealousness to be "right" you've completely missed the entire point. Aldridge is NBA ready NOW. He doesn't NEED to bulk up to play TODAY. Others before him had less bulk, played significantly more minutes, and had good success. The opinion that Aldridge isn't NBA ready because he needs to bulk up is total fallacy - and that was the point I was trying to make before you went on your crusade to "prove" that Bosh was 0.25" taller. Yeah, you got me on that one. Now, how about addressing what I said rather than crucifying me for daring to use the official NBA web site as a reliable source of information.

BNM


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

LaMarcus has looked great in flashes and will get his playing time soon enough. Either by the departure or benching of Magliore. 

...and he does need to bulk up. I give the kid an A for effort though. He is a hustler.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I think you are missing the point. People are saying that after watching him get big minutes and produce in the last few games, why hasn't he been playing all along.
> 
> As for your argument that LMA is a PF, thats your opinion. I tend to think of him as a versatile player capable of playing either depending on who the matchup is against. As of right now, there are not a whole ton of big centers who will kill you with him playing center, after all, how much damage is a Kaman, Curry, Muhammad, etc going to do? Not enough to make me fear them with a smaller center on the court. The only guys you really have to worry about at center are Shaq, Yao (and he isn't that physical). Phoenix runs Amare at center. Dallas runs big sections of the game with Dirk at center. Tim Duncan is no bigger and he plays center. As the league is evolving into more of a mobile game, I think the centers of the league will tend to evolve as well towards that style of play.


LMA tends to get put out from the basket about 10-15 feet in order to take advantage of his ability to knock down a mid-range or foul-line jumper. On rotations he does tend to get his hands on a fair number of offensive rebounds. But seeing as he's usually so far away from the basket, if he's one of the primary options that will reduce his rebounding numbers. You're going to need someone to play inside at some point to clear the glass. You could play LMA at center, and bring in a tough, nose-grinding PF, or you could have LMA have an added advantage playing PF and have a center you already have grab some boards.

Tim Duncan plays center reluctantly. Most of the time, he matches up against the PFs. And as for Dirk, I admit I haven't seen many games with them this year, but in years past I don't remember them ever running Dirk at center. Perhaps it's new.


----------



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

yakbladder said:


> It's amazing to me that LMA gets more minutes than both Joel and Magloire, and people still ***** constantly.


Yeah, he's finally getting the PT he deserves after getting a total of 39 minutes in the previous 10 games - and he only got back into Nate's rotation after Travis Outlaw got injured. 



yakbladder said:


> If there's nothing to gain this year, why play LMA 48 minutes?


That's a stupid statement and you know it. NOBODY (other than you) has said anything about Aldridge playing 48 MPG. What I suggested is starting him and playing him 30 MPG. That's a lot less than your ridiculous 48 MPG.



yakbladder said:


> You want to just bust open the injury jar this year and see what you find? I've agreed all along he should get minutes, but let's not get carried away and run him into the ground because of some ridiculous opinion that a full game every night will make him that much better a player than a mere 15-20 minutes.


And why does playing him more than a paltry 17 MPG (which doesn't include those DNP-CDs BTW) mean he'll get injured? Plenty of other players, including many recent rookies, average 30 MPG and don't seem to have injury problems. What make you think Aldridge is so fragile? Prior to the last three games, he averaged 3.9 MPG over the previous 10 games. That's just plain stupid anyway you look at it. Back when Joel was injured, LMA showed he was ready to play, yet he is rewarded with 3.9 MPG of garbage time and a bunch of DNP- CDs. You think this is GOOD for his development as a player? If so, please explain.[/QUOTE]



yakbladder said:


> I could use the same argument for Joel that others use for LMA - it's hard to get a rhythm when you're played so sparingly and pulled in games.


You could, but you'd be wrong, Joel never is and never will be close to the offensive player LaMacus is already. He was respectable offensively when the Blazers used to run an occasional high post pick and role. In Nate's current system, he's a total non-threat on offense. Joel has no decent post moves. The majority of his points (all 2.1 per game - including a grand total of ZERO points over the last three games) come on putbacks. That would be great is he was regularly scoring, oh say 5 or 6 points a game, but he's not (he's scored 5 or more points exactly three times all year). Our starting center is averaging 2.1 ppg. That's not just bad, it's downright embarassing. That's Manute Bol bad (worse, actually). Yet, our No. 2 draft pick was getting 3.9 MPG and multiple DNP-CD's during a 10 game stretch. 

Joel's rebounding and blocks are also down. He only averages 4.3 RPG and 1.7 BPG. Here's Joel's numbers from the last three seasons:

2004-2005 24.4 mpg 6.4ppg, 7.7rpg, 2.1bpg
2005-2006 24.9 mpg 6.7ppg, 7.0rpg, 2.3bpg
2006-2007 17.9 mpg 2.1ppg, 4.3rpg, 1.7bpg

Yes, his minutes are down, but so is his production on a per minute basis. He contributes next to nothing on offense. His rebounds, both total and on a per minute basis are down and only marginally better than Aldridge's. He does block twice as many shots as Aldridge, but it hardly makes up for his lack of offense (Aldridge scores over 3x as much in comparable minutes). Aldridge is actually a better on-the-ball defender. Personally, I think the coach is misusing both of them. 

I have no problem with Joel and LaMarcus sharing minutes. I do think LaMarcus is already a better all-around player and certainly has a heck of a lot more upside. My real problem is that with Joel starting and Magloire being "showcased" there are only so many minutes left for Aldridge, and until Outlaw got injured, that was 3.9 MPG and 3 DNP-CDs over that pervious ten games. That's my complaint. Why does our No. 2 pick have to wait until somebody gets injured to get any significant PT?

BNM


----------



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

hasoos said:


> As for your argument that LMA is a PF, thats your opinion.


Agreed. Both the Blazers and the NBA consider him a center.



hasoos said:


> I tend to think of him as a versatile player capable of playing either depending on who the matchup is against.


Agreed again. He has the quickness to defend smaller forwards and the length to defend most centers playing today.



hasoos said:


> The only guys you really have to worry about at center are Shaq, Yao (and he isn't that physical).


And both are currently injured. Throw in the fact that Yao isn't a banger, just BIG (but he's taller than everybody, so that disadvantage isn't unique to Aldridge), and Shaq is in the East (meaning we have one more game this year against the Heat when Shaq MIGHT play), there are very few centers that will physically abuse Aldridge - and if one does on occasion, it'll be good for him. Consider is a learning experience. Watching the big boys from the bench is no substitute for being out their banging bodies with them.

BNM


----------



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

Two more reasons LaMarcus should be getting more PT:

1) His style is much more complimentary to Zach's than our other two centers. With Joel, we're essentially playing 4 on 5 offensively. That makes it easy to double team Zach with little or no downside. Offensively, Jamaal just seems to get in Zach's way. He isn't the total offensive non-factor that Joel is, but he is only effective in the low post, which is exactly where you want Zach operating. Parking Magloire's fat butt down on the block just gives Zach the excuse he is looking for to drift outside where he is less effective and les efficient ofensively.

2) LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy are two cornerstones for the future of this franchise. They need to play together and learn to feed off each other's strengths. Aldridge was injured and didn't play in the preseason and first 6 games. Roy missed Aldridge's first game and then 18 more in a row. Ironically, it was during this stretch while Roy was out that LaMarcus got significant time filling in for the injured Joel. Joel came back and Nate forgot Aldridge was on the roster (giving him 39 total minutes and 3 DNP-CDs over a ten game stretch). Roy came back during this time and resumed playing big minutes, but Aldridge was buried deep on the bench only seeing occasional garbage time minutes. *Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge have only played 10 or more minutes in the same game three times all season* - the last three games. Not coincidentally, both have had some of their best games of the season (both scoring career highs) during this three game stretch. These guys are the future. Play them both and play them together. Why wait? What is to be gained by keeping them apart. Let them play and watch them develop. They both have the potential to be special players. Don't deny them the unique opportunity to grow together. It is very, very rare for a team to get two of the top six players picked in any given draft. The Blazers had a truly outstanding draft. They got the best big man and the best all around player in the draft. So, how about putting them on the court togther and see what happens.

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

mook said:


> I could understand if Aldridge got bench because he just wasn't playing well. But look at his game log:
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/lamarcus_aldridge/game_by_game_stats.html
> 
> He was benched for 10 games for no real reason that I can see. We only won 4 of those games, so it's not like the team did a lot better with him not on the court. When he's been in he's been at least as good as Magloire, and often better.
> ...


Your post set off a flash. Might be something. Probably just gas.

Nate McMillian has experience being around the development of what stud big men? The recent Seattle teams have drafted poorly and haven't had anybody decent on the front line.

For a long, long time. In fact, go back to Nate's playing days to......

wait for it......

Shawn Kemp.

Think the rise and fall of Kemp, coupled with Nate's lack of any other experience with a true stud of a young big man has him confused?

Personal experience affects most perceptions far more than they realize or what is rational.

If I live in a sketchy neighborhood, but have never been mugged, go to an equally sketchy neighborhood, once in a while, and get mugged there - what place strikes fears in me? The personal experience fallacy is near impossible to overcome.

Note. I am not saying Nate confuses LaMarcus for Kemp. Just that he doesn't really know what to do with him. Maybe, in the back of his mind is worried about him staying grounded, thinking slow is better than fast so he will be more ready to handle it all if he becomes a star.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Nice, Masbee, I'm always excited when pop psychology gets applied to coaching. He's subconsciously linking the death spiral of Kemp's career with Aldridge. Nate's doing everything he can to nurture him through precarious temptations of booze, loose women, cocaine and cheeseburgers. 

Or it could be he's so used to dealing with crappy young big men from his Seattle days that he's just lumping Aldridge in with them. 

Or maybe the collective hive of Blazer management/coach staff figures, "Hey, it took us three years to finally use Zach adequately. And we never did use Jermaine right after four years. We've got a storied tradition of screwing around with promising young big men to maintain. Let's yank Aldridge for ten games!"


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> I could understand if Aldridge got bench because he just wasn't playing well. But look at his game log:
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/lamarcus_aldridge/game_by_game_stats.html
> 
> He was benched for 10 games for no real reason that I can see. We only won 4 of those games, so it's not like the team did a lot better with him not on the court. When he's been in he's been at least as good as Magloire, and often better.
> ...


When you cherry pick data points, of course you get the answer you want. You've got a list of guys who either have big time experience at the college or international levels, or some of the most physically mature HS studs ever, while Aldridge basically only played a year and wasn't the main feature on his team. Of course those other guys get more PT. You also didn't take into account that PT tends to increase for young guys as the year goes on, and Aldridge has only played a couple months so far after missing training camp with an injury.

Here's a list of guys who are in LMA's peer group, lotto picks in the 2006 draft.

Andrea Bargnani - 22 mpg
Tyrus Thomas - 10 mpg
Shelden Williams - 22 mpg
Patrick O'Bryant - 8 mpg
Saer Sene - 5 mpg
Hilton Armstrong - 13 mpg
Cedric Simmons - 15 mpg

Aldridge is better than most of those guys right now, but no team, even bad ones who spent a high draft pick, is really dishing piles of minutes for their young big men, even though they are mostly bad teams. So I guess the hypothesis that all the other teams are doing it isn't true.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Here's some choice quotes from Jason Quick's Blazers Blog:

Nate, on Aldridge:

"...Let me coach the team. I would say that to all the critics and all the people who want LaMarcus ... I'll coach the team. When LaMarcus is ready to play, I will play him."

What does LaMarcus say about that (and what have I been saying all along)?

"It's hard for everyone, but I'm a rookie, and you have to take your time and watch these other guys, so when I go in I know what to do,'' Aldridge said. "I think so far it has been great for me. I think I'm doing pretty well, and I'm learning a lot from Joel and Zach. The thing is, when we play guys like Tim Duncan, I'm somewhat of a liability because I'm a rookie and just learning how to play post defense. So when I'm not playing, I'm watching how Joel and Zach get in there and shut those types of guys down."


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Here's some choice quotes from Jason Quick's Blazers Blog:
> 
> Nate, on Aldridge:
> 
> ...




Sounds to me like LaMarcus is a pretty mature kid. Says all the right things. It also sounds like the coaching staff is feeding him a bunch of ****. Aldridge has been complimented by two elite big men so far this season on his defense. How exactly is he a liability? I realize he's nowhere near being able to shut Duncan down, but Joel, Magloire, and especially Zach can't either.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> When you cherry pick data points, of course you get the answer you want. You've got a list of guys who either have big time experience at the college or international levels, or some of the most physically mature HS studs ever, while Aldridge basically only played a year and wasn't the main feature on his team.


Right and wrong. Aldridge played 53 college games and over 1600 minutes. Bosh played 31 college games and 960 minutes. Aldridge was both older and had more experienced (and had more "bulk) coming out of college than Bosh. And, for a guy who wasn't "the main feature on his team", his final season numbers are very, VERY similar to Bosh's

Bosh - 31 mpg, 15.6 ppg, 9.0 rpg, 2.2 bpg 56.0% FG%
Aldridge - 33.7 mpg. 15.0 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 2.0 bpg. 56.9% FG%

So, if the younger, skinnier, less experienced Bosh was capable of starting and playing 33.5 mpg as a rookie, why is Aldridge buried behind two inferior players getting only 18 mpg on average - when he plays, along with multiple DNP-CDs?

Stoudemire and Howard may have been "some of the most physically mature HS studs ever", but they had nothing on LaMarcus physically, and were even younger and less experienced. Here's their predraft measurements (height without shoes, weight, wingspan, standing reach):

Amare Stoudemire 6'8.5" 233 lbs. 7'1.75" 9'0.5"
Dwight Howard 6'9" 240 lbs. 7'4.5" 9'3.5"
LaMarcus Aldridge 6'10" 234 lbs. 7'4.75" 9'2"

Looks to me like all three are pretty close physically. It's not like Amare or Howard were Shaq, or even Greg Oden, coming out of high school.

Yet, these younger, less experienced players averaged 31 and 32 mpg as rookies compared to Aldridges 18 mpg and multiple DNP-CDs.



dudleysghost said:


> Here's a list of guys who are in LMA's peer group, lotto picks in the 2006 draft.
> 
> Andrea Bargnani - 22 mpg
> Tyrus Thomas - 10 mpg
> ...


Thomas is younger, smaller and much more raw than Aldridge. He's a great athlete, but he doesn't have anywhere near the developed offensive game Aldridge has. He's also buried on a pretty good (20-15) Chicago team that is deep at the 3 and 4. Quite frankly, unlike Aldridge he hasn't outplayed anyone in front of him in the rotation and hasn't done anything to show he deserves any more minutes than he's getting.

O'Bryant and Sene are projects and Armstrong and Simmons were pciked in the teens (not the top five) in a weak draft. Comparing their PT to Aldridges makes little sense to me.

That leaves Bargnani and Williams who are both getting more minutes than Aldridge. Bargnani is up to 22.6 mpg and has only played less than 20 minutes once in the last month (16 games) and is averaging 28.3 mpg over that 16 game stretch. That's the kind of consistant minutes I'd like to see Aldridge get. Williams' minutes are also on the rise. Like Bargnani, he has already played considerably more minutes than Aldridge, and his PT is increasing. Unless he's suddenly enched for no apparent reason (and I can't imagine an NBA coach doing that), he'll end up, like Bargnani averging about 4 - 6 mpg more than Aldridge for the season - and that assumes Aldridge continues to get the same minutes he has the last three games and doesn't go back to getting 3.9 mpg game when Outlaw comes back from his injury.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> When you cherry pick data points, of course you get the answer you want. You've got a list of guys who either have big time experience at the college or international levels, or some of the most physically mature HS studs ever, while Aldridge basically only played a year and wasn't the main feature on his team.


actually, I don't think I was cherry picking data. I just thought back to the really good power forwards/centers who have emerged in the past four years or so. this is the list I came up with. feel free to add your own names to disprove my point. 



> Here's a list of guys who are in LMA's peer group, lotto picks in the 2006 draft.
> 
> Andrea Bargnani - 22 mpg
> Tyrus Thomas - 10 mpg
> ...


we just fundamentally disagree here. I don't think these guys are in his peer group. nobody is talking about any of those guys as potential Rookie of the Year. only Bargnani was drafted ahead of him, and he looks to be several years away from putting up big numbers in the NBA. 

I stand by the peer group I put Aldridge in: Amare, Bosh, Boozer and the rest. from what I've seen, Aldridge is a year or two (at most) from being a 17 point, 8 rebound, 2 block a night big man. and I think I'm being pretty conservative in saying that. he might average that (or better) right now if given the chance. 

guys in this peer group seem to consistently get far more minutes on other teams than they do under Nate. 



> You also didn't take into account that PT tends to increase for young guys as the year goes on, and Aldridge has only played a couple months so far after missing training camp with an injury.


a valid point. I did some quick math, and for him to average 29 mpg over the season, he'd have to average from here on out 35 mpg each night. 

does anyone on this board really expect that to happen, based on what we've seen so far? (hint: his career high in minutes is 34.)

his MPG average will bump up as the season continues to go along. he may catch Boozer's average if Magloire goes away soon. but will he be in the 31-36 minute company of most of his peers? not likely.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> Here's some choice quotes from Jason Quick's Blazers Blog:


Boy, talk about cherry picking to make your point. You left out Quick's comment

"_It is clear that McMillan has become uncomfortable with his constant flip-flopping of his rotation, and he is clearly edgy regarding questions of why he continues to play Jamaal Magloire over LaMarcus Aldridge, when everybody with a brain can see that the rookie is better. I think it is obvious that McMillan is playing Magloire in order to enhance his trade value, but the coach said he is not being told whom to play by management._"



dudleysghost said:


> Nate, on Aldridge:
> 
> "...Let me coach the team. I would say that to all the critics and all the people who want LaMarcus ... I'll coach the team. When LaMarcus is ready to play, I will play him."


You also left out the exchange that lead to this response, which was:

Quick: I asked him if he thought Magloire has played well?

Nate: "He has done some good things. Has he played great basketball? He probably hasn't played great basketball, but that's the rotation I'm going with right now,'' McMillan said last month. "I think it's easier to sit a young guy than a veteran.''

Quick: So, he was doing it to keep a harmonious locker room?

Nate: ""Of course. Of course..."

The WHOLE reason I started this thread is that after the last three games, Aldridge has, beyond a doubt, shown he is ready to play. So, now it's time to back up his words with actions. He's shown he's ready to play, so play him like you said you would. 

Oh wait, Magloire gets minutes to keep him from causing problems in the lockerroom, not because he earns them with his play on the court. Who cares? He's not part of this team's future. Let him cry and moan all he wants. Playing him in front of Aldridge sends a very bad message, not just to Aldridge, but to all the young players on this team - especially whan Nate has said repeatedly he will play the guys who are most deserving. So, what's it gonna be Nate? Are you going to play the guys who deserve the PT based on their on the court performance, or are you going to continue to play the guy who will whine the most if his PT gets cut when he gets outplayed by someone else?

BNM


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Sounds to me like LaMarcus is a pretty mature kid. Says all the right things. It also sounds like the coaching staff is feeding him a bunch of ****. Aldridge has been complimented by two elite big men so far this season on his defense. How exactly is he a liability? I realize he's nowhere near being able to shut Duncan down, but Joel, Magloire, and especially Zach can't either.


Nobody can shut down Duncan, but those three veterans do a much better job of slowing him down than LMA does. Those eyes telling you otherwise are the same eyes that told you Telfair and Webster deserved more PT last season. It's common for people to project all sorts of hopes onto a rookie, but that doesn't make it real. I think Aldridge will eventually be a great defender, but it's going to take time.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> So, what's it gonna be Nate? Are you going to play the guys who deserve the PT based on their on the court performance, or are you going to continue to play the guy who will whine the most if his PT gets cut when he gets outplayed by someone else?
> 
> BNM



Just jumping in this thread, but does that mean if JM or Joel starts to outplay LA on the court or if LA goes through a really tough stretch where he is playing bad on the court, you will support the idea of benching LA?

I'm hoping it's been mentioned, but LA has been getting PT of late . . . I think it's time for Nate bashers (don't know if that is you BNM) to move on and ***** about Sergio's minutes . . . unless this thread is one big I told you so.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Just jumping in this thread, but does that mean if JM or Joel starts to outplay LA on the court or if LA goes through a really tough stretch where he is playing bad on the court, you will support the idea of benching LA?


I'd support benching Aldridge if that happened. obviously, three or four games aren't enough (especially for a rookie who will naturally have more ups and downs), but if he sucks for 6 or 7 games, I'd be willing to admit I was wrong.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Just jumping in this thread, but does that mean if JM or Joel starts to outplay LA on the court or if LA goes through a really tough stretch where he is playing bad on the court, you will support the idea of benching LA?
> 
> I'm hoping it's been mentioned, but LA has been getting PT of late . . . I think it's time for Nate bashers (don't know if that is you BNM) to move on and ***** about Sergio's minutes . . . unless this thread is one big I told you so.




I'm not sure what my answer to this question is, but let me ask you one. is it any fifferent because Joel and Magloire are supposed to be consistant? Might not be fair to bench a rookie because he goes through a tough stretch.


----------



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

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Just jumping in this thread, but does that mean if JM or Joel starts to outplay LA on the court or if LA goes through a really tough stretch where he is playing bad on the court, you will support the idea of benching LA?


Yes, as it would send a clear, consistant message to ALL the players. You earn your PT based on your performance, not to "showcase" you for a potential trade or to keep you from whining and causing lockerroom problems.



Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm hoping it's been mentioned, but LA has been getting PT of late . . . I think it's time for Nate bashers (don't know if that is you BNM) to move on and ***** about Sergio's minutes . . . unless this thread is one big I told you so.


Of course it's been mentioned. His minutes have been up the last three games and so has his production. That's the WHOLE reason I started this thread, Never mind that the only reason Aldridge got back into the rotation is because Outlaw is injured. Nate has said he would play LaMarcus when LaMarcus showed he was ready. He's shown exactly that over the last three games. So, now I'd like to see Nate keep his word to the players, who he has told will get PT based on effort and results, and to the press/public, who he told he would play Aldridge when Aldridge showed he was ready.

I've never "bashed" Nate in the past. But if he goes back on his word and buries Aldridge deep on the bench again when Outlaw comes back, I'll lose a whole lot of respect for him. More importantly, give all his talk about playing the guys who deserve it, I think many of his players will lose respect for him too if he continues to play guys less deserving for reasons other than on court performance.

BNM


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> I'm hoping it's been mentioned, but LA has been getting PT of late . . . I think it's time for Nate bashers (don't know if that is you BNM) to move on and ***** about Sergio's minutes . . . unless this thread is one big I told you so.


you know, it's getting a little old being being lumped in as a "basher" or a "whiner" or "hysterical" just because I happen to think Nate is wrong about both Sergio and Aldridge. not just you, KMD, but by several others as well. 

if we can't rationally discuss these two topics without calling names, there isn't much left worth discussing about our currently crappy team.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mook said:


> I'd support benching Aldridge if that happened. obviously, three or four games aren't enough (especially for a rookie who will naturally have more ups and downs), but if he sucks for 6 or 7 games, I'd be willing to admit I was wrong.


I haven't read through the thread, but not sure how you would be wrong (maybe you said if LA gets the minutes he will show why he should of had them and outperform the other two?)

Funny because I haven't been too bothered by LA minutes but feel if it's time to throw in the towel on the season, go ahead and give LA the minutes no matter what.

BTW-loved the line about being lazy . . . but not to lazy to read . . . you should be a writer. :biggrin: 
I can top your laziness, sometimes I'm too lazy too read and just sign.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

dudleysghost said:


> Those eyes telling you otherwise are the same eyes that told you Telfair and Webster deserved more PT last season.


yeah, it's sure a good thing that Juan Dixon got all those minutes over Webster. that's really worked out great for us.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Right and wrong. Aldridge played 53 college games and over 1600 minutes. Bosh played 31 college games and 960 minutes. Aldridge was both older and had more experienced (and had more "bulk) coming out of college than Bosh. And, for a guy who wasn't "the main feature on his team", his final season numbers are very, VERY similar to Bosh's...


Yes *one* of the players listed had similar experience coming out of the draft as Aldridge, although Bosh got his minutes playing on a Toronto team whose next best big men was Antonio Davis and Jerome Williams (both very near the ends of their careers). It's a wonder he only got 33 mpg under those circumstances.

How about the rest of the guys on that list?



Boob-No-More said:


> Stoudemire and Howard may have been "some of the most physically mature HS studs ever", *but they had nothing on LaMarcus physically*, and were even younger and less experienced. Here's their predraft measurements (height without shoes, weight, wingspan, standing reach):
> 
> Amare Stoudemire 6'8.5" 233 lbs. 7'1.75" 9'0.5"
> Dwight Howard 6'9" 240 lbs. 7'4.5" 9'3.5"
> ...


 (emph added)

This is just plain wrong. As long as you are looking up draft camp numbers, why don't you check out the bench press reps. LMA was one of the weakest big men at camp, and Howard and Amare were beasts.

Then there's Boozer and Okafor, who were dominant players with tremendous experience in college. Like Bosh, they also went to teams that had nearly no alternatives at their positions.

So really, none of those examples is like Aldridge.



Boob-No-More said:


> Thomas is younger, smaller and much more raw than Aldridge. He's a great athlete, but he doesn't have anywhere near the developed offensive game Aldridge has. He's also buried on a pretty good (20-15) Chicago team that is deep at the 3 and 4. Quite frankly, unlike Aldridge he hasn't outplayed anyone in front of him in the rotation and hasn't done anything to show he deserves any more minutes than he's getting.
> 
> O'Bryant and Sene are projects and Armstrong and Simmons were pciked in the teens (not the top five) in a weak draft. Comparing their PT to Aldridges makes little sense to me.
> 
> ...


Yes, like I said, none of the teams that drafted big men in the lotto is force feeding them minutes. Only Bargs and Williams play more than Aldridge, by a few minutes. Neither of them started out the season injured, and both of them have gotten extra minutes due to the injury of an incumbent starter and a general lack of other available talent at their positions on those teams.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> actually, I don't think I was cherry picking data. I just thought back to the really good power forwards/centers who have emerged in the past four years or so. this is the list I came up with. feel free to add your own names to disprove my point.


See the above post. There's some major differences between the players you listed and Aldridge. Most of them were either more experienced, more physically developed and/or played for teams with less competition at their positions than LMA. Those are some pretty valid reasons that they would get more minutes than LaMarcus.



mook said:


> we just fundamentally disagree here. I don't think these guys are in his peer group. nobody is talking about any of those guys as potential Rookie of the Year. only Bargnani was drafted ahead of him, and he looks to be several years away from putting up big numbers in the NBA.
> 
> I stand by the peer group I put Aldridge in: Amare, Bosh, Boozer and the rest. from what I've seen, Aldridge is a year or two (at most) from being a 17 point, 8 rebound, 2 block a night big man. and I think I'm being pretty conservative in saying that. he might average that (or better) right now if given the chance.
> 
> guys in this peer group seem to consistently get far more minutes on other teams than they do under Nate.


Nobody is seriously talking about Aldridge for Rookie of the Year either. NBA.com has him ranked _12th_. Even if he was a ROY candidate, that would be by default since this year's draft class is pretty lacking in top level talent. That still wouldn't put him in the class of the guys you mentioned. IF Amare, Howard or Okafor were in this draft class, they would have been picked 1st and nobody would be talking about any other possible ROYs. They are just a step above. Guys in that peer group consistently got time their rookie years because they were better than guys like Aldridge, who are thin and unsure and need more time to develop.



mook said:


> a valid point. I did some quick math, and for him to average 29 mpg over the season, he'd have to average from here on out 35 mpg each night.
> 
> does anyone on this board really expect that to happen, based on what we've seen so far? (hint: his career high in minutes is 34.)
> 
> his MPG average will bump up as the season continues to go along. he may catch Boozer's average if Magloire goes away soon. but will he be in the 31-36 minute company of most of his peers? not likely.


Amare and Howard are not his peers, and I don't think LMA will average 29 mpg. I do think he will average more than the 18 mpg he has so far. Does anyone on this board expect that not to happen? If so, are you the same people who thought that Nate was going to play Dixon more minutes than Roy? Nate is watching LMA develop and work, and adding minutes accordingly.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mook said:


> yeah, it's sure a good thing that Juan Dixon got all those minutes over Webster. that's really worked out great for us.


Webster wasn't ready to play. Why is that so hard for people to understand? You guys want to believe that our rookies can do anything, but it isn't true. There's a dang good reason Webs was sent to the D-league.

Do you really think that the coach should have continued to play Webster and watch him shoot 32% while getting burned on defense? No, that strategy would have been non-viable. Fortunately for Webster, he understood, unlike many here on this board, that young players can improve in practice, in the weight room and in film. He worked hard in Ft. Worth, came back and worked hard in Tualatin, and eventually won his way back into the rotation by the end of the season. Fortunately for all of us, Aldridge seems to understand this process as well.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Boy, talk about cherry picking to make your point. You left out Quick's comment
> 
> "_It is clear that McMillan has become uncomfortable with his constant flip-flopping of his rotation, and he is clearly edgy regarding questions of why he continues to play Jamaal Magloire over LaMarcus Aldridge, when everybody with a brain can see that the rookie is better. I think it is obvious that McMillan is playing Magloire in order to enhance his trade value, but the coach said he is not being told whom to play by management._"
> 
> ...


I did leave those out. I also left out the whole rest of the blog. I posted what I thought was relevant. I don't deny that NAte is being forced to play Magloire more minutes than he otherwise would to "showcase" him, nor do I think that's a good strategy.

That still leaves you failing to respond to LaMarcus's statement that he himself thinks he's a "liability" on post defense. He doesn't seem to think of himself as the obviously best player, as some here do. Doesn't that affect your opinion on the matter?




Boob-No-More said:


> The WHOLE reason I started this thread is that after the last three games, Aldridge has, beyond a doubt, shown he is ready to play. So, now it's time to back up his words with actions. He's shown he's ready to play, so play him like you said you would.


You should notice then, that the last three games Aldridge _has_ played. The whole reason I responded to this thread is because I think you guys are way too impatient and often irrational, as evidenced by your (IMO) overly positive assessments of Aldridge's ability the fact that _you're calling on Nate to give him PT when Nate has been giving him PT_.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> Bosh got his minutes playing on a Toronto team whose next best big men was Antonio Davis and Jerome Williams (both very near the ends of their careers). It's a wonder he only got 33 mpg under those circumstances.
> 
> Actually, not completely accurate... but I get your point.
> 
> ...


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> Nate is watching LMA develop and work, and adding minutes accordingly.


Wrong!!!! Nate has said he likes to keep his roation at nine players. The ONLY reason LaMarcus has gotten significant minutes the last three game is due to Travis Outlaw's injury.

Tarvis is out now, so LaMarcus is in the top nine. What haoppens when Travis comes back? If Nate is true to his word, it won't be LaMrcus Aldridge who drops out of the rotatation, it will be either Jel, or Magloire. My vote is for Magloire. He's actually outplayed Joel lately, but isn't part of this teams' future.

The whole point of this thread was tht LaMarcus Aldridge has shwon he's ready to play NOW. He's outperforming BOTH of the guys in front of him. To cut his PT and once again bury him DEEP on the bench when Travis Outlaw comes back would be completely assinine.

BNM


----------



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

OK, for those who DON'T think LaMacus Aldridge should get more PT (say 25 - 30 MPG, night in, night out for the rest of the season), please tell me why.

For example, will playing LMA more minutes now hurt the team in the short run? If so, how and why.

Will it hurt the team long term? How? Why?

Will the increased PT delay Aldridge's development? How? Why?

What's the potential downside to playing him 25 - 30 mpg each and every game?

Seriously, I've stated my case over and over. Some people have taken shots at parts of my argument. That's OK, and some of the counterpoints have had merit. It's why we have these discussions. Other than the tired party line about "showcasing" the expiring contract, I have seen anyone post any reasons why LaMarcus Aldridge shouldn't get more playing time on a consistant basis.

Another way to look at this is Nate likes to keep the rotation to nine players. Are there really nine guys on this team better than LaMarcus Aldridge right now. If so, are thay all as vital to the future of this team as he is?

I can understand people not agreeing with ALL my points, but on the very basic question of why increased PT for LaMarcus Aldridge would be a bad thing, I'm drawing a blank. Please enlighten me.

BNM


----------



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

One final point, then I'll go away for a while...

Since they are playing in his hometown, I think it would be a nice jesture by Nate if he rewarded Aldridge for his recent performance with a start tonight. I think he's earned it, and it would mean a lot to the kid and his family. Given the way he's outplayed Joel and Jamaal lately, it certainly wouldn't hurt the team and his extra energy and enthusiasm might help them get off to a fast start against the Mavs.

BNM


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> One final point, then I'll go away for a while...
> 
> Since they are playing in his hometown, I think it would be a nice jesture by Nate if he rewarded Aldridge for his recent performance with a start tonight. I think he's earned it, and it would mean a lot to the kid and his family. Given the way he's outplayed Joel and Jamaal lately, it certainly wouldn't hurt the team and his extra energy and enthusiasm might help them get off to a fast start against the Mavs.
> 
> BNM


I don't see him starting, but I would be shocked if he didn't get significant minutes. Dallas is just the type of team LA should do well against. It is just a matter of what he does with the time given him.

Everything will change in February. For me, the trading deadline can't come soon enough.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> I can understand people not agreeing with ALL my points, but on the very basic question of why increased PT for LaMarcus Aldridge would be a bad thing, I'm drawing a blank. Please enlighten me.
> 
> BNM



Because we aren't at practice and in the locker room. I say leave it up to the coach and unless a poster has some privledged information, accept that the coach knows best and is trying to do the best for the ball club.

What if LA confidence starts to take a nose dive by gettting beat on a nightly basis. Maybe he hits the rookie wall and more PT becomes counter productive. Maybe he develops an attitude problem and needs to be set an example of. Maybe his injury starts to flare up. Maybe there is another team interested in JM and wants to take a better look before making an offer. 

My point is we don't know jack as fans. Yet many are quick to feel they have all the answers including how many minutes to give to each player.

I want to see LA get minutes and develop (what else do we have to look forward to at this point besides the development of players.) But I think it is wrong to take the cookie cutter approach of saying LA gets 30 mins a night regardless. 

Nate probably knows a thing or two about NBA player development, understands that the future is trying to develop these players. LA is getting minutes now . . . if he doesn't later on, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that coach has a reason . . . he gets my benefit of the doubt because he knows a lot more of what is going on with the players than any of us on this board.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, by 0.25" without shoes (according to the 2003 Chicago Bulls predraft web site), but since when does taller == bigger? Those same "verifible" sites also show Aldridge as heavier AND having a greater wingspan. Now, tell me who is bigger, Bosh and Aldridge.


apparently you can't keep what you've said strait. Here's your statement that I refered to...



> Chris Bosh was both *shorter* and skinnier than LMA.


If what my point has been is not clear enough for you I don't what to say.



> And the point isn't that predraft Bosh as a measured 0.25" taller than predraft Aldridge. You are so focused on "proving" you are right that you are missing the real issue here.


clearly you've missed my point that I've restated again and again. Stating opinion as fact is lame especially when that opinion is in fact wrong. Using a notoriously off set of statistics as the basis of a rant is also pretty stupid... should I believe the World Weekly News too? 



> So, back to the point. Chris Bosh, as a rookie, was lighter and less bulky than LaMarcus Aldridge. He was also younger. As a rookie, Bosh started the majority of his teams games, played 33.5 MPG and had a very successful rookie season. He has continued to improve since and became an all-star in his third season. If the lighter, less bulky Bosh was able to play big minutes and have success as a rookie, why can't LaMarcus Aldridge? Why does Aldridge only average 17 MPG on a lottery bound team?


Clearly the LaMarcus and Bosh are exactly equal players and prospects and their respective teams are in exactly the same situations roster wise. The only logical conclusion is that Portland is limiting LA's minutes because they want to make you upset.



> Oh please, come down off your high horse before you get a nose bleed. Incorrect, wild guesses? I didn't make those number up, they are not my opinion. I used figures from the official NBA web site. How is that a wild guess. You may think those numbers are wrong, but how is that my fault. You're shooting the messanger.


ha! I'm on my high horse because I don't accept bogus numbers!!! :lol: 



> Alright, let's turn the tables. Find ONE site ANYWHERE that shows Chris Bosh or Rasheed Wallace weighing more than LaMarcus Aldridge.


dude you have lost it. Where did I ever indicate that was the case? 



> In your overzealousness to be "right" you've completely missed the entire point. Aldridge is NBA ready NOW. He doesn't NEED to bulk up to play TODAY. Others before him had less bulk, played significantly more minutes, and had good success. The opinion that Aldridge isn't NBA ready because he needs to bulk up is total fallacy - and that was the point I was trying to make before you went on your crusade to "prove" that Bosh was 0.25" taller. Yeah, you got me on that one. Now, how about addressing what I said rather than crucifying me for daring to use the official NBA web site as a reliable source of information.


thanks for the laughs

STOMP


----------



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

STOMP said:


> apparently you can't keep what you've said strait. Here's your statement that I refered to...





Boob-No-More said:


> Chris Bosh was both shorter and skinnier than LMA.


I have absolutely no problem recalling what I've said. Perhaps you need to learn to read. I've explained multiple times my statement was based on data from the official NBA web site. First you accused me of guessing. It wasn't a guess. I looked it up first, just not on a STOMP approved web site. If you have a problem with their data, take it up with them and stop beating me up over it.



STOMP said:


> clearly you've missed my point that I've restated again and again. Stating opinion as fact is lame especially when that opinion is in fact wrong. Using a notoriously off set of statistics as the basis of a rant is also


OK, now you're just being a tool. Other than beat me up over and over for using data from the official NBA web site, you have contributed NOTHING to this thread. You have failed to even discuss whether or not LaMarcus Aldridge should or shouldn't be getting more playing time and why or why not. I'm done wasting my time with you.



STOMP said:


> Clearly the LaMarcus and Bosh are exactly equal players and prospects and their respective teams are in exactly the same situations roster wise. The only logical conclusion is that Portland is limiting LA's minutes because they want to make you upset.


Wow, great debate tactic. Why bother discussing what I wrote intelligently and offer a counter opinion when you can just put words in my mouth and be a total *** about it. Nice. Way to avoid any hope of intelligent discussion on the subject of this thread.



STOMP said:


> thanks for the laughs


Whatever. Thanks for adding NOTHING to this discussion.

BNM


----------



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

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Because we aren't at practice and in the locker room. I say leave it up to the coach and unless a poster has some privledged information, accept that the coach knows best and is trying to do the best for the ball club.
> 
> What if LA confidence starts to take a nose dive by gettting beat on a nightly basis. Maybe he hits the rookie wall and more PT becomes counter productive. Maybe he develops an attitude problem and needs to be set an example of. Maybe his injury starts to flare up. Maybe there is another team interested in JM and wants to take a better look before making an offer.
> 
> ...


All valid points and well presented. Thanks for taking the time to post them. Obviously, the coach knows more about the situation than we do. 

However, he has made statements in the press I find disturbing (about giving Magloire minutes in order to keep a harmonious locker room). This contadicts other statements about giving minutes to the players that earn them with their on court performance. I have no additional insight on this and am just going by published statements he has made.

Still, LMA got 34 minutes tonight. So, thus far Nate is giving him the PT he has earned - like he said he would. I just hope it continues when Travis Outlaw comes back from injury.

BNM


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> All valid points and well presented. Thanks for taking the time to post them. Obviously, the coach knows more about the situation than we do.
> 
> However, he has made statements in the press I find disturbing (about giving Magloire minutes in order to keep a harmonious locker room). This contadicts other statements about giving minutes to the players that earn them with their on court performance. I have no additional insight on this and am just going by published statements he has made.
> 
> ...


The one thing I like about Nate's approach to the rookies is that things aren't coming easily to them.

I think you have a strong argument that LMA has outperformed Joel and Magloire. I don't think it's clear cut fact, but certainly arguable.

But even if he has, like any rookie, he still has a great deal of work to do to be an effective consistent player. Some of that learning comes in game time, some in practice, and some in attitude and work ethic.

By making him earn (or even earn beyond a shadoow of a doubt) a consistent role on the team, Nate could be accelerating his development by keeping him hungry. 

Nate also has the opportunity to help him develop good habits and ween him off of bad ones by bringing him along slowly.

I'm not saying that this is the right way to go, but I can see some logic in it... like you, I would love to see LMA on the court more. But I'm willing to let it ride for a little while.

Right now what LMA needs to do is take advantage of Outlaw's time out in a big way. Do so many good things out there that Nate can't stand to keep him off the court... then it'll take care of itself.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> OK, now you're just being a tool.


if I'm a tool for wanting discussions based on facts rather then crap, consider me a weed eater. I would have respected it if you'd have said something along the lines of _opps my bad in using bad info... I was just upset but consider my greater point_, I would have responded more to the points you were trying to make... but instead you continued to distort, evade and then tried flailing attacks at me. Are you really unaware that the stats on the official hype site of the league has been crap for years? They list Juan Dixon as 6'3!!! Did you just start following the league yesterday?

Hopefully you don't try this sort of nonsense as a basis for future discussions as it reads like whiney crap. 

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

STOMP said:


> if I'm a tool for wanting discussions based on facts rather then crap, consider me a weed eater. I would have respected it if you'd have said something along the lines of _opps my bad in using bad info... I was just upset but consider my greater point_, I would have responded more to the points you were trying to make... but instead you continued to distort, evade and then tried flailing attacks at me. Are you really unaware that the stats on the official hype site of the league has been crap for years? They list Juan Dixon as 6'3!!! Did you just start following the league yesterday?
> 
> Hopefully you don't try this sort of nonsense as a basis for future discussions as it reads like whiney crap.
> 
> STOMP



In fairness, what site(s) do you consider credible?

In any event, this has gotten waaay off the original topic. My *opinion*, is that BNM is essentially correct - there is no harm in giving LaMarcus more playing time, and it could be beneficial.


----------



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

STOMP said:


> if I'm a tool for wanting discussions based on facts rather then crap, consider me a weed eater.


Done.



STOMP said:


> I would have respected it if you'd have said something along the lines of _opps my bad in using bad info... I was just upset but consider my greater point_, I would have responded more to the points you were trying to make... but instead you continued to distort, evade and then tried flailing attacks at me.


My goodness, you take yourself way too seriously Stompy my boy. Do you have ANY idea how pompous and arrogant you sound. I have to apologize before you'll honor me with a meaniful response. Sheesh, get real Stompy. Come down off your high horse before you hurt yourself.



STOMP said:


> Are you really unaware that the stats on the official hype site of the league has been crap for years? They list Juan Dixon as 6'3!!! Did you just start following the league yesterday?


If you consider 1968 yesterday, then yes. Believe me, I've seen things you've only read about, and many other's you haven't. But hey, I certainly didn't know Chris Bosh measured 0.25" taller without shoes at his predraft camp than LaMarcus Aldridge until you enlightened me. Man, how will I ever live down the embarassment. You da man Stompy.



STOMP said:


> Hopefully you don't try this sort of nonsense as a basis for future discussions as it reads like whiney crap.


Oh my goodness. I've been taken to the woodshed by the great and powerful Stompy. How will I ever find the courage to post again in this forum.

Get real junior. Like I need your blessing to post here or care one tiny iota what you have to say. You keep posting, yet you haven't added ANYTHING to the discussion about Aldridge and whether or not he deserves more PT. Thanks for your monumental contributions to this topic. Keep up the good work.

BNM


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

excellent argument about aldridge by BNM... i just read that and was definately feeling that. true story. damn son, you spend a few hours in the library for all that? :clap:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Didn't you guys know...

In Stomp's world, games aren't played on the court. They're decided by what a player measures at the pre-draft camp.

Seriously. The game won't exist in about 10 years, instead it will consist of a monthly exercise of drafting players who meet up to Stomp's standards.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Wow, the douche bag of the year award goes too... Excellent points BNM. Appreciate the valuable contributions.


----------



## The Sebastian Express (Mar 3, 2005)

The height and weight statistics for nba.com are provided by the teams. When Robinson was still playing, they had Duncan listed as 7'0" so that they (the Spurs) could market as having the two seven foot towers. A few years ago, Duncan asked that they list his correct height which is actually 6'11.

I know there are always whisperings that McGrady is actually closer to 6'10" than 6'8", and of course we all know there is no way Juan Dixon is 6'3". I'd imagine pre-draft camp measurements or an official list that the team takes each training camp (I believe they do), is the only way you'll get the truth.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Didn't you guys know...
> 
> In Stomp's world, games aren't played on the court. They're decided by what a player measures at the pre-draft camp.
> 
> Seriously. The game won't exist in about 10 years, instead it will consist of a monthly exercise of drafting players who meet up to Stomp's standards.


Still bitter about the way the draft turned out and the season is going for your special friend? Before the predraft, after the predraft, and after the draft I never wavered on who I wanted my favorite team to draft... and I'm still thrilled that they did. The team selected who I wanted and they're looking great so far, I'm just not in a rush for them to carry the load right this second. I like the patient approach that coaching and management is taking with their stud rookies. There will be plenty more seasons ahead for them to show their worth.

As we go forward and talk about other players, I'm going to continue to base my opinions in fact as much as possible and try to leave out the hyperbole of what I might hope to be true. I know that rubs some the wrong way, but I can live with that. I find it funny how the same few who have problems with this approach, but whatever... 

STOMP


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Great article in the Columbian yesterday comparing Aldridge and Magloire when they both play 20+ minutes a game. The ONLY category Magloire leads in is Rebounds. This might be a little hard to read, but it's pretty interesting if you can decifer it.

LaMarcus Aldridge 

date Opponent Min FG Reb Bl To Pts
Nov. 14 Minnesota 25 3-5 4 3 0 7 
Nov. 15 Cleveland 23 5-5 8 0 0 13 
Nov. 17 Boston 27 5-5 5 0 0 12 
Nov. 18 New Jersey 34 5-9 3 2 1 12 
Nov. 20 San Antonio 23 4-8 6 0 1 8 
Nov. 22 New Jersey 27 4-12 8 0 1 10 
Nov. 25 Sacramento 31 2-4 3 2 1 6 
Dec. 1 Orlando 26 4-8 5 1 0 10 
Dec. 3 Atlanta 28 2-4 8 3 1 6 
Dec. 5 Detroit 24 5-9 11 1 0 11 
Dec. 6 Milwaukee 25 4-8 4 1 0 10 
Jan. 6 Sacramento 22 1-5 7 2 1 2 
Jan. 7 Miami 32 7-15 6 2 1 14 
Jan. 9 San Antonio 24 6-8 6 0 1 17 

Totals 14 26.5 57-105 (54%) 6.0 1.2 0.6* 9.9 
*Aldridge only has two multi-turnover games this season 


Jamaal Magloire 


Nov. 3 Golden State 28 0-1 10 0 3 2 
Nov. 6 L.A. Clippers 23 2-4 3 0 4 4 
Nov. 8 L.A. Lakers 29 3-5 11 2 2 8 
Nov. 12 Dallas 20 1-2 1 1 0 2 
Nov. 20 San Antonio 22 3-4 6 1 2 9 
Nov. 26 Phoenix 20 2-6 7 3 2 4 
Dec. 8 Indiana 22 5-7 7 2 2 14 
Dec. 10 Toronto 20 1-2 10 0 4 6 
Dec. 11 Philadelphia 29 2-5 2 1 1 6 
Dec. 13 Memphis 25 3-5 7 1 2 9 
Dec. 15 L.A. Lakers 22 2-6 9 0 1 6 
Dec. 20 Houston 20 3-7 6 0 1 9 
Dec. 22 Toronto 31 2-6 15 2 2 6 
Dec. 29 Philadelphia 20 4-5 5 2 1 10 
Jan. 1 Boston 28 3-7 13 0 3 9 
Jan. 3 New York 21 5-5 6 0 1 10 
Jan. 6 Sacramento 24 0-3 2 1 2 2 
Jan. 7 Miami 24 3-9 7 1 1 8 


Totals 18 23.4 44-89 (49%) 7.1 0.9 1.9* 6.9 
*Magloire has 15 multi-turnover games this season


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

There is no question - LaMarcus is having the best rookie year of any Blazers _frontcourt_ player since Clifford Robinson in 1989-90. He's in a special class; Thompson, Bowie, Robinson, Aldridge, as possibly best ever on the team.

Roy is also having a great first season. I'd rank him with Bates, Colter, McKie, Hollins - but still way behind Petrie for all-time best _backcourt_ rookie season for a Blazers player.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, not completely accurate... but I get your point.
> 
> To be accurate, Antonio Davis was their starting center for the first 15 games of the season. *In those 15 games he played way better (8.6 ppg, and 9.5 rpg) than anybody currently playing in front of LaMarcus Aldridge.* In fact, AD was scoring more than Jamaal and Joel combined and pulling down almost as many rebounds as the two of them. He was far from washed up. Yet, after just 15 games, Toronto saw enough in Bosh to trade AD to Chicago and make Bosh the starter. If only the Blazers would have traded Magloire after 15 games and given his PT to LaMarcus Aldridge...


Actually, you're statement is inaccurate. You seem to assume that Aldridge is a C. He's more of a true PF build in the NBA, but the only reason we're calling him a C is because the PF position is occupied by a pretty good PF already. I think it's clear that Zach Randolph is better than Antonio Daniels. AD wasn't that bad that year, but that still doesn't change the fact that Toronto had few options at the FC positions. I think a lineup of Zach, Joel, Magloire, Outlaw is pretty obviously better than the players that Bosh was competing with at FC in Toronto. Do you even dispute that?



Boob-No-More said:


> So???????????????????????????????? This is basketball, not football. Since when does bench press reps have any bearing AT ALL on one's ability to play the game of basketball? Sheed also did very poorly in this respect. I imagine Bosh did as well. I'm reasonably sure right now that Jamaal Magloire can bench press more than LaMarcus Aldridge, but Aldridge is still the better player. For crying out loud, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the all time leading scorer in the history of the NBA, but I bet Danny Fortson could out bench him. BFD!


You were the one making the outlandish contention that Amare and Howard "had nothing on LaMarcus physically", and I gave you one quantifiable and dramatic example of a difference. Bench press isn't itself the most important exercize for a basketball player, but overall strength is very important, especially for a post player. Those other guys had enormous amounts of it, and LMA is relatively lacking. They are not physically the same, and it's Howard and Amare's very rare physical gifts that got them so much PT their rookie years despite being right out of HS. Aldridge himself has noted his weak post defense, and a lack of strength is a major part of that. Deny it if you wish.



Boob-No-More said:


> Well, except Bosh who was about as similar in both size and college performance as you could get without being identical twins.
> 
> You do realize, those were not my examples. My examples of long, lanky rookies who got significant PT and had good success were Sheed and Chris Bosh. Tell me you don't see the similarities in their builds and games.


I think they are similar. What's not similar is their situations. Aldridge landed on a team with Zach Randolph at PF and two established veterans at C. Bosh and Wallace landed on teams that basically didn't have PFs (Juwon Howard played SF back then).



Boob-No-More said:


> Ahem, and the Blazers are rolling in talent at the 5?


Despite the Internet forum hyperbole, yes we do have some talent at the 5, especially compared to the team's that the players Aldridge has just been compared to went.



Boob-No-More said:


> Seriously, in spite of being a rookie and not getting anything close to consistant PT, LaMarcus Aldridge has a higherer player efficiency rating than Joel or Jamaal.


Yes, he's our best offensive center. But center for us is a defensive position, especially when Zach is on the floor. The C is usually sent to cover the other best post offensive weapon, and if they don't have one (like the Mavs last night), then the C is assigned to box out the other team's offensive rebounder and block shots. Aldridge's offense is definitely useful, and his defense overall isn't bad, but he doesn't hold his ground down low.



Boob-No-More said:


> Funny, nobody has responded to my point about the fact that LaMarcus Aldridge and Brandon Roy have only played 10 minutes or more in the same game three times all season (the last three games when they've both scored career highs, BTW). Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else. Here you have two very high draft picks, the two cornerstones of your future, and if not for Travis Outlaw's injury they wouldn't have gotten ANY significant PT together so far this season. This is a golden opportunity for these young guys to grow together. So, continue to put them out there together (after Travis comes back, bench Magloire, not LMA) and watch them get grow. Surely, I'm not the only one who'd like to see Brandon Roy and LaMarcus Aldridge on the court at the same time on a regular basis, am I? Until the last three games, it hadn't happened all year, and I'm afraid it will stop happening again as soon as Travis Outlaw comes back. All in the name of "showcasing" Jamaal Magloire and keeping him from causing problems in the locker room. Makes NO sense to me.
> 
> BNM


I don't think it's that odd. Both missed major parts of the season with injury, and they'll get time to play. I don't think Nate should give minutes to Magloire to showcase him, but part of the reason Aldridge hadn't been playing is because Nate didn't think he was ready. Part of the reason Aldridge has been playing is because Nate did think he was ready. If he wanted to fill the minutes Outlaw had been playing with more Magloire, Joel, or Raef, he could but those guys haven't seen any increase. In fact the opposite appears to be happening.

So basically, Aldridge is getting minutes, and people still complain. Nate hasn't fed him minutes fast enough for some, but I'm happy Aldridge has a better attitude about it, and I'm confident that he will continue the rapid development he's already shown (mostly working outside of live game situations) and will be that cornerstone piece we hope he will be. If people want to raise their blood pressure over it in the meantime, that's unfortunate.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> However, he has made statements in the press I find disturbing (about giving Magloire minutes in order to keep a harmonious locker room). This contadicts other statements about giving minutes to the players that earn them with their on court performance. I have no additional insight on this and am just going by published statements he has made.
> 
> Still, LMA got 34 minutes tonight. So, thus far Nate is giving him the PT he has earned - like he said he would. I just hope it continues when Travis Outlaw comes back from injury.
> 
> BNM


I don't give the media the benefit of the doubt, so when there is a contradcition, I usually blame it on the media. However, in this situation I could see Nate contradicting himself. Especially because the announcers last night talked about how LA thought he should have to earn his mins over the vets, was learning in practice and watching games and never complained about PT (they went on a praise Aldridge's attitude rant for a few minutes).

Maybe Nate took the easy way out and gave the minutes to JM knowing JM was expecting them and would complain about not getting them.

Tough situation Nate was in . . . keep to your original statement of giving PT to the players that deserve it (gives you credibility and control of your players) . . . or let JM take LA's minutes (to keep the locker room and team as a single unit).

It's a long season and LA is a rookie. I would of handled it the way Nate has (let LA slowly work his way into more and more PT). But I get your point about contradiction and guessing in this situation there was a contradiction.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> OK, for those who DON'T think LaMacus Aldridge should get more PT (say 25 - 30 MPG, night in, night out for the rest of the season), please tell me why.


I absolutely agree with that. Maybe not 25-30 mpg, but some consistent PT. Unless the last three games turn out to be some kind of fluke, and I don't think they will, Aldridge is good enough to play. He's made large strides in his game by working hard off the playing court since he was drafted, and even since his first NBA game, but while he should continue to do that, his development is definitely to the point now where PT is helpful.



KMD said:


> I say leave it up to the coach and unless a poster has some privledged information, accept that the coach knows best and is trying to do the best for the ball club.


It's fine to question, but I agree with this too. I'm confident that Nate knows what he's doing, and is bringing Aldridge along slowly but surely. Many of us would like to see Nate go to a more consistent lineup (with our own favorite players of course), but so far he hasn't. He hasn't had teams that have a consistent core that can be successful, so he juggles and looks for guys who are playing well at any given time. The upside of that inconsistency is that guys on the end of the bench always get chances to prove themselves, and if a guy comes out and plays well he gets more PT. It's not a championship system, but it's a way to do rotating evaluations. That's why I was sanguine about the fact that Aldridge would get his chance when he wasn't playing, and then not surprised when that chance came.



BR said:


> The one thing I like about Nate's approach to the rookies is that things aren't coming easily to them.
> 
> I think you have a strong argument that LMA has outperformed Joel and Magloire. I don't think it's clear cut fact, but certainly arguable.
> 
> ...


Yes. I like that; "It'll take care of itself." Work hard out of games, play well in games, and the minutes will come.


----------



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

OK, a litle more fuel for the fire...

In the last three games, LaMarcus Aldridge has scored in double figures three times. This matches to combined season total of double figure scoring games for Joel Przybilla and Jamaal Magloire.

The 45 points LaMarcus Aldridge has scored in the last three games exactly matches the 45 total points Joel Przybilla has scored during the months of December and January. LaMarcus Aldridge's offensive output over the last 3 games matches Joel's over the last 21 games. Joel has gone scoreless over the last four games, but before you assume Joel is just going through a little slump, his three highest scoring games of the year are also included in that 21 game window. 

And, I know it's not just about scoring. Over that same three game stretch, LaMarcus Aldridge has gotten exactly 6 rebounds in each game and has blocked an average of 1.33 shots per game. By comparison, Joel has gone eight games in a row without grabbing 6 rebounds, and hasn't had a three game stretch with at least 6 rebounds in each game all season. Joel's rebounding has dropped to 4.20 rpg and LaMarcus Aldridge's has risen to 4.00 rpg.

And although he's a rookie, Aldridge is also less foul prone and less turnover prone than the veterans Joel and Jamaal. For the season, LaMarcus Aldridge averages 2.4 fouls and 0.57 turnovers per game. That equates to 5.2 fouls and 1.23 TOs per 40 minutes. Compare that to Joel's numbers: 2.70 fouls and 0.92 TOs per game = 6.1 fouls and 2.1 TOs per 40 minutes. And just so he doesn't feel left out and cause problems in the locker room, here's Jamaal Magloire's foul and TO numbers: 2.60 fouls and 1.42 TO per game = 5.51 fouls and 2.95 TOs per 40 minutes. So, in this case the myth of the foul prone, turn over prone rookie is just that, a myth. He beats both veterans in both categories on both per game and per 40 minute numbers.

This easily explains why Aldridge's player efficiency rating of 8.50 is also better than Joel's (6.08) and Jamaal's (7.41).

And for those whio claim Aldridge isn't a center, the Blazers list him as one, so does the NBA, and that's primarily the position he's been playing so far this year. His best position may eventually be power forward, but the fact that he can play both, and Joel and Jamaal can't, is just one more reason he should continue to get more minutes than either of them. He's both better AND more versatile.

BNM


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> Still bitter about the way the draft turned out and the season is going for your special friend? Before the predraft, after the predraft, and after the draft I never wavered on who I wanted my favorite team to draft... and I'm still thrilled that they did. The team selected who I wanted and they're looking great so far, I'm just not in a rush for them to carry the load right this second. I like the patient approach that coaching and management is taking with their stud rookies. There will be plenty more seasons ahead for them to show their worth.
> 
> As we go forward and talk about other players, I'm going to continue to base my opinions in fact as much as possible and try to leave out the hyperbole of what I might hope to be true. I know that rubs some the wrong way, but I can live with that. I find it funny how the same few who have problems with this approach, but whatever...
> 
> STOMP


Yep, I'm royally pissed that he has the best shot to win Rookie of the Year.


----------



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

dudleysghost said:


> Actually, you're statement is inaccurate. You seem to assume that Aldridge is a C.


It's not an assumption. The Blazers list him as a center, the NBA lists him as a center, and it's the position he has been playng the most minutes at so far this year. He may eventually become more of a 4, but right now he's mostly playing the 5.



dudleysghost said:


> He's more of a true PF build in the NBA, but the only reason we're calling him a C is because the PF position is occupied by a pretty good PF already.


No, we're calling him a center becuase that's what the team calls him and that's the position he's playing.



dudleysghost said:


> I think it's clear that Zach Randolph is better than Antonio Daniels.


He's also better than Antonio Davis - the guy who was Toronto's starting center at the beginning of Bosh's rookie year.



dudleysghost said:


> AD wasn't that bad that year, but that still doesn't change the fact that Toronto had few options at the FC positions. I think a lineup of Zach, Joel, Magloire, Outlaw is pretty obviously better than the players that Bosh was competing with at FC in Toronto. Do you even dispute that?


Nope, I don't and never did. Without a player of Zach's caliber, Toronto was definitely weaker at the combined 4/5 than Potland is this year. However, I'm not saying LaMarcus should be starting in place of Zach, or even getting any of Zach's minutes. So, bringing Zach into the equation has nothing to do with my original stance. The Blazers are using him primarily at center (and BTW, Bosh played primarily the center position his rookie year, too) and my point all along is he's better than both the guys playing center in front of him on this team and deserves more minutes than either. On top of the fact that he's out playing them. He's also a HUGE piece of the future of this franchise. Toronto realized that with Bosh 15 games into the season, traded their starting center (who was significantly better back then than either of the two centers we currently have playing in front of Aldridge) and moved Bosh into the starting center roll.



dudleysghost said:


> Bosh and Wallace landed on teams that basically didn't have PFs (Juwon Howard played SF back then).


Actually, of the three teams, Washinton had by far the most talent and depth at the 4/5 back in those days. Juwan Howard played all three front court positions, depending on the match-ups and who else was in the game. If Washington wanted to go big (and I mean REALLY big), Howard's rookie year, they went with Muresan at center, Howard at the 4 and Chris Webber at the 3. If they wanted to go small, they moved Howard to the position he played in college, center, moved Webber to 4 and used Calbert Cheaney at small forward. They used a similar strategy Howard's second season, but replaced the injured Webber with the rookie Sheed. The fact that they had several big men who could play multiple positions (Howard - 3,4,5; Webber 3,4; and Sheed 3,4,5) made them very versatile, but also lead to PT issues and the trading of Sheed to Portland once Webber returned from his injury. 

If anything, it was not Washington's lack of front court depth that lead to Sheed getting significant minutes his rookie year. In addition to Howard, Webber and Sheed, they also had Muresan as there starting center - who had by far his best season Sheed's rookie year, at 14.5ppg, 9.5 rpg and 2.3 bpg - far, far better than either Joel or Magloire this year. They also had Jim McIlvaine at center, and while he wasn't exactly great, did play 80 games that year, average 14.5 mpg and put up numbers similar to Joel's this year.

In any case, it certainly wasn't Washington's lack of depth that led to Sheed's big rookie minutes. It was a combination of Webber's injury and the fact that both Sheed and Juwan Howard (and Webber, when healthy) could play more than one position.

And this brings us back to LaMarcus Aldridge. In spite of having a proven power forward in Zach Randolph, the Blazers this year, have far, far less front court talent on their roster than Washington did back in Sheed's rookie year. Yet, Washington still managed to find enough PT for Sheed for him to average 27.5 mpg his rookie year. 

Like Sheed, Aldridge is a long, versatile player who can play more than one position. Personally, I'd love to see Aldridge both starting at center AND getting a few minutes a game backing up Zach at the 4. He has the versatility to play both, why not use it (like Washington did with Sheed, Howard and Webber early in their careers to get them all decent PT)? At the very least, let him be the primary back-up at BOTH the 4 and 5. IMHO he's shown he's the Blazers best overall center, and given the fact that power forward may be his best position, it makes sense to give him some minutes there, too while Zach is resting.



dudleysghost said:


> So basically, Aldridge is getting minutes, and people still complain.


Actually, I'm not complaining. I love the fact that Aldridge is getting minutes right now. Given the way he's played given this opportunity, it makes me wonder why he'd only been averaging 3.9 mpg in the previous 10 games. And, if he goes back to being buried deep on the bench once Travis Outlaw returns, then I'll complain.

BNM


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Yep, I'm royally pissed that he has the best shot to win Rookie of the Year.


Well this is what makes you a special poster. We'll just have to see how things turn out for Mr. 37%. Unless things turn around in a big way for him, I don't think he gets anywhere close to the ROY dispite getting the most minutes.

STOMP


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Oldmangrouch said:


> In fairness, what site(s) do you consider credible?


heights and weights listed in most sites are usually well off from reality. The best way that I've found to get info thats closer to whats what is to use a search engine to find real measurements taken at the various predrafts. From Hoopshype to some minor sites, there are usually multiple locations that carry this yearly info. Sometimes it takes a little digging around the web to find a particular year though. Trying different combinations of words such as the year, NBA pre-draft, measurements, wingspan, or even the players name can bring up the results you want. It's pretty obvious when you get your desired list. 



> In any event, this has gotten waaay off the original topic. My *opinion*, is that BNM is essentially correct - there is no harm in giving LaMarcus more playing time, and it could be beneficial.


there is nothing wrong in holding any opinion no matter how off base/spot on. I just have a problem when people dress up their opinion/guesses as fact. This sometimes limits what threads I'll respond to, but I thought I'd give a try at appealing to a new memeber in this case. Oh well... anyways, as I've stated before I'm very happy to have LA on the team and optimistic in what I think he'll bring down the road. I don't share your opinion that extended PT is going to benefit him that much, at least in comparison to doing the off court things that should ensure his success down the line. Eventually talent rules/cream rises to the top... heck after coming out his Jr. year Clyde Drexler averaged 17 minutes a game in his rookie year and his career turned out OK. 

I think that some fans get a bit hung up on PT as the end all, as thats all we observe first hand. But I've seen plenty of dogs get PT early on and not improve 1 iota as they aged. It seems hard work pays off most every time no matter talent level (or career). I'm mostly hopeful that LaMarcus is training and eating right. Dude is obviously already talented and blessed with a great body for hoops... doing things right off the court is what will give him the best chance of maximizing his potential down the line IMO.

STOMP


----------

