# Would Thomas/Gay been a better pick then Bargnani



## Jwill55gRizZ (Jun 8, 2003)

I think with the uptempo run and gun style that the raptors run, they really missed the opportunity to have picked up The two most athletic players in the draft (league) in Thomas/Gay.. They are both showing glimpses when they get playing time (gay more so).. and i think Thomas would be pretty solid in an uptempo system


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

At this point, I don't see why they'd be helping our team anymore.

Rudy is a GREAT talent, but he doesn't take full advantage of his abilities. He drives to the basket 1% of the time.

And Thomas is a good talent as well, but is VERY raw. high bust potential still.

if anything, we should have picked Brandon Roy.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

We're not really a running team at this point. We're a high scoring team but not a running team. 

I like Gay and Thomas but that BC drafted such a freak, versatile 7 footer. I like BC's size:skill valuation and Bargnani's is amongst the highest in the league. 

It's great to have drafted a 5 (or a guy that can defend the 5), as you know it's not all that difficult to add athletic freaks (see Moon).

That said, if we hadn't won the lotto, I would have been very happy with acquiring Rudy.


----------



## southeasy (Jun 11, 2003)

yeah my sentiments exactly, not for the number one pick.. bargnani was the best option, if we went anywhere else with that pick it would have been my dude lamarcus aldridge if anyone... there is alot of players with just as much athleticism as gay/thomas ex; dorell wright, trevor ariza, jamario moon, sean williams, gerald wallace, gerald green etc etc etc for days.

Moon can do what Gay does with better defensive numbers. Thomas hasn't done much for Chicago in both their losses to us this year either.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

I think if we are going to make this debate, it should start with Aldridge.

Rudy Gay is a good player, but athletic wingman are everywhere in the NBA. Unless he is an extraordinary talent, which he isn't, he shouldn't be picked #1.

As for Tyrus Thomas, if it's just for this season, I would take Jamario Moon over him. Thomas needs at least another year to become an adequate rotation player and it's anyone's guess if he ever becomes a star. Again, if he becomes the next Stromile Swift, then drafting him first would be the equivalent of the Kwame Brown/Olowakandi pick, I don't think any GM would want to take that kind of risk.


----------



## southeasy (Jun 11, 2003)

two points of emphasis i want to make

stromile swift despite not deserving to some, is still an athletic freak & a beast on the blocks with enough touches & the right system, always liked what he could do above the rim & on defense.

last point, all along i wanted lamarcus aldridge from day 1, before we made the selection, right up to it, didn't like the bargnani pick, but it grew on me.


----------



## DWADE4 (Aug 18, 2006)

1st the Raptors wouldnt want no part of Thomas, hes going to be a huge bust for the 2nd overall pick. If we are talking about who would've been a better pick then Bargs it has to be either Brandon Roy or LaMarcus Aldridge. LA and Bosh would make a deadly inside outside combination.


----------



## Dee-Zy (Jan 12, 2006)

My pick was Aldridge and it is showing to be a strong pick right now but I am very happy with the Gnani pick, in fact I think we made the right pick for this team. I think Gnani has more upside and Dridge is more of a 4 than a 5 which would make it a problem for us. I think dridge will be an AS though. Hopefully Gnani will be a superstar.


----------



## crimedog (Jun 3, 2003)

I hope none of the people in this thread started the 'best offensive centre' in the league thread. 


Come on, we were all falling over ourselves about Bargnani after the first two games of the season...so he's in a funk and hasn't found his groove...let's not second guess him just yet. 


I still pick Bargnani first...and I still think Houston was crazy for trading Gay for Battier.


----------



## A.W.#8 (Sep 8, 2003)

Crimedog speaks the straight truth.
It's amazing how everyone hop's on Bargnani's tip when he's drainin treys, and how they all hop off when he's bustin lays.

He's still in his second year. Relax and ride Jamario Moon's bandwagon until that cools off, then Bargnani will drain a a dagger trey right in your face.

FOR THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE> YES


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

I stated Bargs numbers as a starter in the last 4 games...one of those games was a bad one as well. He is averaging 13.5 and 6.....not bad with regular minutes. It looks like Smitch is going to insert Rasho tonight as the starter though.


----------



## jamesblair23 (May 24, 2006)

crimedog said:


> I hope none of the people in this thread started the 'best offensive centre' in the league thread.
> 
> 
> Come on, we were all falling over ourselves about Bargnani after the first two games of the season...so he's in a funk and hasn't found his groove...let's not second guess him just yet.
> ...


:clap2: 

Bargnani was the right pick. We may no realize that today, but in 3 years from now, it will be quite evident.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

Even in hingsight I think the draft worked out as anticipated

- Aldridge and Roy were tabbed as the most ready to contribute but with the probably the lowest ceilings (true)

- Gay and Thomas were tabbed as athletic freaks with not many skills to speak of (true) 

- Morrison was tabbed as a potential bust beacause of his lack of athletism and speed(true)

- and our guy Bar-neeny was the big unknown question mark with the supposed most upside potential and therefore was afforded the #1 selection in a draft that was without a clearcut # 1.

I wanted Aldridge because I knew nothing of this Italian kid, but I'm not ready to give up on the him just yet. He still has the potential be the best of the lot, but it's obvious to all that a player like Roy or Aldridge would of made us a better team today.


----------



## NCR (Nov 28, 2007)

What did people realistically expect from Bargnani this year? 14 games into the year, and he hasn't even been that terrible. He's going to have growing pains, obviously. And it is a stupid move to start Rasho in place of Il Mago tonight, especially when he is just coming back from 2 weeks off.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

i won't lie, i think andrea's having a dreadful year. he looks plain. there are so many things that i don't like about his game now, it's hard to describe them all. the key thing that bugs me, though, is that they didn't bother me so much last year because he was clearly making strides. now? it's the same thing every game, it seems, just as bad as the last. seems like he's always trying to make it through to the next whistle, his comfort level is shot. that scares me.

andrea bargnani's lack of clear development could be the silent killer on this team.

no one's really talking about him. it's too quiet. i don't want him to get comfortable with being uncomfortable because that carries a very real long-term price. this absurdity about sending him back to the bench to start games because "he can't thrive alongside chris bosh... to start games" is so shortsighted it hurts. 

he can shoot three-pointers but you get the impression, from hearing people talk about him, that it's _all_ he can do. and so, naturally, that's all he _does_. he's loitering around the top of the key, setting lazy screens (better than hoffa's, but worse than hump's) and stepping out to the point where he couldn't get the rebound unless the rim bazooka'ed the ball out to him.

when he's around the rim, he goes up with the expectation that he's about to get blocked- so instead of throwing it down, he pretty much concedes the blocked shot, "here." 

even his shot, which is still a thing of beauty in good times, seems to vary these days, which is a sign of how he's approaching his game overall (to wit, if tim hardaway could be seen as a good shooter, form does not necessarily predict success- it may just be a sign of other things). note his legs from shot to shot- they're not always under him, they're not even always _set_. for example, i once saw him shoot with his left foot planted and his right foot tip-toed vs cleveland (?). that's a symptom, imo, of shooting for the sake of shooting, not shooting for the sake of scoring. it's pretty clear.

anyway, when sam suggested that andrea's future was more exciting for his _defensive_ potential, i thought he was drugged. evidently, he must've been. andrea's just getting dominated, seemingly every night- more than last year. foul trouble also follows him around like an owner's 10 year-old dog.

imo, the progress has simply not been there... yet. with the correct treatment he'll get back on the right page. but can we assume he'll get the right treatment? as i've said before, i think we've been overly protective of the guy. can't let him believe that his improvement will come naturally, inevitably. if he's going to improve, he's going to have to get it out of himself. the "right treatment" is needed to help him come to that realization.

i can hardly watch him play now without thinking i'd rather have someone else on the floor. at those moments, though, the right thing to do for his future is not necessarily to take him off.

peace


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

TRON said:


> - Aldridge and Roy were tabbed as the most ready to contribute but with the probably the lowest ceilings (true)


Untrue about the ceilings part. Both Aldridge and Bargnani are 22 years old while Roy is a _whopping_ year older. Maybe this can't be said about Roy (though I don't see why), but if Bargnani is oozing with potential + a high ceiling why can't the same be said about Aldridge?

Aldridge and Bargnani's games are as similar as night and day, but that doesn't seperate their potential growth where one is higher than the other.


----------



## A.W.#8 (Sep 8, 2003)

Ballocks, 
With all due respect guy but have you watched the passed 3 or 4 games? He's been doing way more than just shooting. He's creating shots and putting the ball on the floor.
And defensively he hasn't been nearly as bad as you think he is. Aside from a bad showing against Big Z on saturday. He's blocked some shots, altered a lot, and gets rebounds.

Everyone is way too critical and just picks and opinion on him and rolls with it without even watching.

So yea let's bring in Rudy Gay, watch him be average, and watch bargnani tear your faces up on another squad.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by *trick !*
> 
> Untrue about the ceilings part. Both Aldridge and Bargnani are 22 years old while Roy is a whopping year older. Maybe this can't be said about Roy (though I don't see why), but if Bargnani is oozing with potential + a high ceiling why can't the same be said about Aldridge?
> 
> Aldridge and Bargnani's games are as similar as night and day, but that doesn't seperate their potential growth where one is higher than the other.


Bargs came into the league with a very unique skillset for a 7footer, even though he had yet to realize any of that potential professionally, people seen this and invisioned what it could amount to if he all put it all together. Now whether that ever comes to fruition is still up for debate, but when ur messing with a 7footer with such special and unique skills, you have afford him a higher cieling. Whether he ever reaches these lofty levels is another subject.

Now with Aldridge, he came in the more pollished prospect and has proved to be so (as we all anticipated), it's just that to many, he has already realized most of what he will be at full maturity. Without looking at his numbers, he must be just under a 20/10 player and should be around that level for most of his career. How much better can he really get???

This statement shouldn't be taken as a slight against Aldridge, he's a very solid player (and again was my choice for the #1), but doesn't have the upside potential that Bargs has, again all IMO.

then again, sometimes this "potential" thing can be taken too far. At one point in time people probably looked at Skita and thought the same things about him, while dismissing Carlos Boozer as a guy that has already reached his full potential


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

TRON said:


> Now with Aldridge, he came in the more pollished prospect and has proved to be so (as we all anticipated), it's just that to many, he has already realized most of what he will be at full maturity. Without looking at his numbers, he must be just under a 20/10 player and should be around that level for most of his career. How much better can he really get???
> 
> This statement shouldn't be taken as a slight against Aldridge, he's a very solid player (and again was my choice for the #1), but doesn't have the upside potential that Bargs has, again all IMO.
> 
> then again, sometimes this "potential" thing can be taken too far. At one point in time people probably looked at Skita and thought the same things about him, while dismissing Carlos Boozer as a guy that has already reached his full potential


I have no idea why Aldridge does not have the upside potential that Bargs has. He is a much better post player and he will get better, he is faster and he is a fantastic mid-range shooter. He is also a good offensive rebounder - but can and I expect will get much better on the defensive rebound side. He is already one of the best big dribble penetration defenders (once again, amazing foot speed for such a big guy) and an average+ post defender. What he does not have is the 3 pt range that Barg has - but then, how many championships were won with a 3pt shooting big man? It seems to me that adding a 3 pt range is an easier task than becoming faster, better post player and good defender. A 2nd year player that missed a large portion of last year with injuries and is already averaging 19/8 while playing for large portions of the game out of position (he is a PF that has to play C with Oden's absence) - it will be years before we know for sure if the correct order was LMA/Barg or the other way around - but there is absolutely no indication that Aldridge's potential is lower than Barg - they are the same age and LaMarcus has speed advantage while Barg is slightly larger.


----------



## southeasy (Jun 11, 2003)

i never even entered the "best offensive centre in the league" thread, i have no problem with bargs, i love to have him here as i stated, i'm just being honest, and aldridge was the guy i wanted. btw it's not like Jamario is shooting lights out and playing out his mind, i doubt he will cool off, he can bring this defensive effort every night.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Yeah, Bargnani's looked hoooorrible the last few games. :azdaja:


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

narrator said:


> Yeah, Bargnani's looked hoooorrible the last few games. :azdaja:


This is sarcastic right?


----------



## billfindlay10 (Jan 24, 2003)

Bargs plays with an Allstar getting boards and touches....Aldridge is playing with who up front? Thats what I thought!


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

billfindlay10 said:


> Bargs plays with an Allstar getting boards and touches....Aldridge is playing with who up front? Thats what I thought!


which one could be lead to believe that things go easier for Andrea since he doesn't get as much as attention defensively as, well let's say, Kevin Durant?


----------



## Victor Page (Nov 1, 2006)

NBA GMs love to swing for the fences - Bargnani has a chance to become a Dirk-like offensive force (i.e. 30 points a game and 10 time all-star).

The Aldridge pick was a stand-up double - with his skill-set, you're almost guaranteed low 20s scoring and a fringe all-star. LA's mid-range jumper is remarkable.

Colangelo took a risk and it's too early to tell if it paid off. Thomas and Gay were similar risks to Bargnani. Both of them have low motors though - I'd take a more limited talent like Joakim Noah who would give up his left arm to win a game than either of those cupcakes. Freakishly athletic guys are in the draft every year. 

i.e. there's a Charlie V. in mid-rounds of every draft.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

i think bargnani had one of his best games of the season vs memphis. shows what i know. 

i think it's important to keep in mind that players' performance is often relative. when i think bargnani is playing poorly, i'm not using the same scale that i would for jason collins. i think bargnani has the chance to be outstanding. his development _towards_ that potential is what i'm grading.

and the reason i tend to express myself more on msg boards than the outside world is probably the same reason everyone else does: the common perceptions that follow players are not always in line with mine. in other words, i know what people are saying about players/teams and i know what the 'verdict' is. but that doesn't mean i agree with it. if some people think bargnani, for example, had a great game because he went 6/11 and grabbed 7 rebounds, good for them. but chances are, imo, that their opinion was formed too quickly, and on not enough info. for me, statistics (especially those ones) do not represent the plays he _didn't_ make, and i will never sit there with a boxscore and claim to know the workings of the basketball world.

in a nutshell, i think boxscores are often so far from reflecting the reality (as i see it, anyway) that they're no more than a distraction, an excuse to oversimplify performance. i think the majority of the game is played between the stats and is hidden _by_ the stats. i think most people would agree- save for those who are begging for an opinion and are looking for an easy way to get it. i don't know.

peace


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

ballocks said:


> i won't lie, i think andrea's having a dreadful year. he looks plain. there are so many things that i don't like about his game now, it's hard to describe them all. the key thing that bugs me, though, is that they didn't bother me so much last year because he was clearly making strides. now? it's the same thing every game, it seems, just as bad as the last. seems like he's always trying to make it through to the next whistle, his comfort level is shot. that scares me.
> 
> andrea bargnani's lack of clear development could be the silent killer on this team.
> 
> ...


Interesting post. I sometimes feel the same way, but mostly I disagree.

AB is multi-talented, but his offence is often stagnant. I will agree with that. There is a problem getting him & Bosh working together better. But I see several signs that are encouraging. They only come in bits and pieces, but they are coming more often. 

Firstly, he is taking and making a lot more quick mid-range shots.

Secondly, he is driving to the basket, and also cutting to the hoop without the ball. Had a very nice layout where he beat Pao up court and AP found him in full stride in the paint.

Thirdly, he is making some very nice no-look passes. Moon last night, but several off the dribble to Bosh over the past few games.

He still takes too many shots per touch, IMO. But less so over the past 7 games than the 1st 7.

Defensively, he has improved a lot. He made life miserably for Gasol last night. He is surprising strong holding his position on the block. He is also rebounding much better than last season, but still has a ways to go.

He is still learning how to stay out of foul trouble. It's not easy. At times this really limit his aggressiveness and therefore his effectiveness.

I think you will see him continue to improve for at least 3 more seasons. I think he will be very comparable to Dirk in 2010-11.

Patience.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

TRON said:


> - Gay and Thomas were tabbed as athletic freaks with not many skills to speak of (true)


Terrible post. Tyrus Thomas and Rudy Gay have almost nothing in common besides their athleticism, especially in terms of a skillset.


----------



## NeoSamurai (Jan 16, 2003)

If I had to re-do the draft again, I'd take Aldridge. Just as athletic as Bargnani, better post defense and rebounding, has a good back to the basket game. Only real thing AB has of LA is the range of his shot and the ability to drive to the basket. 

LA would really compliment Bosh with his game, whereas Bosh and Bargnani on the floor do the same thing. Not a knock on Bargs, just that Aldridge would be a better fit for this team at this moment.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Keep in mind that LA gets to start every game, has the same well-defined role no matter who else is on the floor, gets to shoot 15x a game and play 33 mpg. Bargs role has changed 3 times, and in fact changes substantially depending on whether Bosh, Rasho, or neither are on the floor. He gets 10 shots per game on 24 mpg.

I believe 3 years of coaching at Texas plus Texas HS coaching put LA way ahead of what Bargs would have gotten in Treviso. Maybe Bargs last year before the draft did he get the level of coaching LA got in Texas. 

There is very little difference in their rebounding, really. There defensive boards per minute are virtually identical. LA gets twice as many O-boards, but is that because he's a better rebounder, or because of where the Raps want Bargs to play on offence? 

Defensively, Bargs is already above average on the ball against power players. LA is better overall, but Bargs holds position on the block better. 

Offensively, LA is an exceptional post player. Bargs is very raw. But LA can't shoot treys, and Bargs is hitting at a 47% clip taking 4 per game. That is to say, he is rapidly becoming among the best in the NBA at this, despite being a 7 footer. This may be considered a gimmick by some, and a mark of tremendous versatility by others. I believe it will be easier for Bargs to develop his back to the basket game than for LA to become a 3 point shooter, but that is to some degree crystal ball gazing. Andre Miller has tried for his whole career, and failed. It's just not easy.

Bargs has way better handles. Not only can he drive, but he can pass way better than LA.

I would be happy with either. I think LA & Bosh are even harder to play at the same time than AB & Bosh. And I think AB has a better chance of being an MVP at some point. Although he also has a better chance of being an enigma his whole career, whereas LA could be a 6 time allstar.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by *Rawse !*
> 
> Terrible post. Tyrus Thomas and Rudy Gay have almost nothing in common besides their athleticism, especially in terms of a skillset.


Ummmm, where exactly in my post was I comparing them????????? 

I was just mentioning that in a weak draft that most of the top players have turned out as everyone anticipated them to, so far.

and unless I'm missing something, Rudy Gay is basically the run and jump athlete with an undeveloped game that most people thought he would be before the draft.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

TRON said:


> Even in hingsight I think the draft worked out as anticipated
> 
> - Aldridge and Roy were tabbed as the most ready to contribute but with the probably the lowest ceilings (true)
> 
> ...


Going into the draft, most people (wrongly) had aldridge as a project. They said he was too skinny, not strong enough, and too soft to get post position and play inside with nba bigs. They said he would need a few years to fill out. He wasnt considered as much of a project as Thomas, but most people didnt think either one of them was NBA ready.
Aldridge is a young big man who hasnt filled out yet and the quickness of a guard. Just because he has some refined post moves doesnt mean he has reached his ceiling. His ceiling is still right up there with all the other potential stars of that draft


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

TRON said:


> and unless I'm missing something, Rudy Gay is basically the run and jump athlete with an undeveloped game that most people thought he would be before the draft.


You're missing something. Or you're basing your misguided opinion on the two games he's played against Toronto this year.

Or both.

Rudy Gay isn't Travis Outlaw.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

^ I know Rudy had two subpar games against Toronto this year, but I don't think my perception of him is that off.

I know he can hit the occasional three and attack the rim, but he hasn't done anything where I thought "wow, I didn't know he could do that" 

correct me if I'm wrong, but his handle for a SF is below average, he's not great at creating off the dribble and lacks the creativity for a star wing. If he had these traits he surely would of been drafted #1 and would of been a bigger star at UCON.

maybe I was a little harsh saying he had "little skills to speak of", but so far Rudy has been just about what I expected of him.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by *Pimped Out !*
> 
> *Going into the draft, most people (wrongly) had aldridge as a project*. They said he was too skinny, not strong enough, and too soft to get post position and play inside with nba bigs. They said he would need a few years to fill out. He wasnt considered as much of a project as Thomas, but most people didnt think either one of them was NBA ready.


really, throughout the whole draft process I thought of Aldridge as the most sure thing but maybe not the most "star" qualities.



> Originally posted by *Pimped Out !*
> 
> Aldridge is a young big man who hasnt filled out yet and the quickness of a guard. Just because he has some refined post moves doesnt mean he has reached his ceiling. *His ceiling is still right up there with all the other potential stars of that draft*


I think may statement about Aldridge having a lower cieling has been misinterpreted as a insult against him, so I will reiterate what I meant....

Lets go back to the 98 draft, great year with many stars. 
We had Vince Carter set the League on Fire as well as stars like Paul Pierce and Mike Bibby. At that point in time you would of called me nuts if I said that a German 7footer by the name of Dirk had a higher cieling than either the high flying Carter or Pierce.

but fastforword 5 years and you have an MVP type player that puts up 28 ppg, and can be called a top 5 player in the league. Now as good as Carter and Pierce have been throughout their career, they clearly did not have as high a cieling as Dirk.

This is how I view Aldridge, solid player, maybe even fringe all star, but at his very best, how far do you see him from his current levels??? Now I don't want to compare Bargnani to Dirk by any means, but I believe by the simple laws of demand/supply, that a 7footer with such rare skillset gets awarded a higher ceiling compared to Aldridge who's skillset is much less rare.


----------



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

billfindlay10 said:


> Bargs plays with an Allstar getting boards and touches....Aldridge is playing with who up front? Thats what I thought!


Of course Aldridge doesn't play next to Chris Bosh (and if Bosh doesn't start playing better, he won't be an all-star this year). He IS Chris Bosh. Look at their numbers so far this year. They are amazingly similar. Aldridge's PPG and RPG are very slightly better (19.0 vs. 18.8 and 8.0 vs. 7.9), but then Aldridge also plays and extra 1.5 MPG. So, call that a wash. Bosh is a far better passer, but Aldridge shoots a much higher FG%. So, that sort of cancels out as well. You'd be hard pressed to find two more statistically similar players in the entire league than Aldridge and Bosh.

And, your argument actually favors Aldridge. He's the Blazers leading scorer. Opposing teams game plan around stopping him. Playing next to Joel Przybilla (a good defender and very good rebounder, but an offensive zero), Aldridge is constantly double teamed. Nobody in their right mind is going to leave Chris Bosh wide open to double team Bargnani. As a regular starter, Aldridge has spent the majority of his minutes playing against the opponents best big men - not padding his stats against the other team's second unit. Yet, in spite of this not only are his raw numbers much better than Bargnani's, his PTS/40, REB/40 and BLK/40 and all significantly better than Bargnani's. And yes, as a starter, Aldridge does get more "touches" than Bargnani, but Bargnani gets nearly as many FPA/40 as Aldridge (17.0 vs. 16.4), yet Aldridge averages nearly four more PTS/40 than Bargnani. This is due to the fact that Aldridge shoots a much higher field goal percentage than Bargnani (0.536 vs. 0.422) and even though Aldrdride lacks three point range, his eFG% and TS% are also higher than Bargnani's (53.2 vs. 50.3 and 57.1 vs. 53.1).

And that's just scoring (supposedly Bargnani's strength), throw in rebounding and defense and the edge tips even greater in Aldridge's favor.

So, Aldridge is clearly better right now, and most Raptors fans graciously acknowledge that Aldridge is having the better season and better career to date. So, that brings us back to the "upside" argument. There's really no way to quantify that - it's all based on opinion and impossible to accurately predict. Aldridge is averaging 19.0/8.0 as a second year player. That's obviously a huge improvement over his rookie year and in addition to the sweet mid-range jumper he displayed last year, he really worked hard to develop his low post moves over the summer - and it shows. He's a very hard worker who I think will continue to show steady improvement over the next few years. I don't think 23/10 with some great defense is too unreasonable to project in a another year or two. I admit I don't see Bargnani play every day, so I'll ask you Raptor fans: will Bargnani ever average more than that? If so, how much more (in your opinion) and how long before he reaches that level of production. And even if he does match or better Aldridge's scoring and rebounding numbers, will his defense ever be as good as Aldridge's is right now? I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'm just trying to understand this whole "upside" argument from your perspective and gauge what your expectations are for Bargnani's peak performance and how it compares to my expectations for Aldridge's peak. In the end, it will be their actual performance that determines who is better, but as they are both still very young and continuing to develop, it's interesting to speculate how they will compare long term

BNM


----------



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

TRON said:


> Now I don't want to compare Bargnani to Dirk by any means, but I believe by the simple laws of demand/supply, that a 7footer with such rare skillset gets awarded a higher ceiling compared to Aldridge who's skillset is much less rare.


Problem is, Bargnani lacks the "routine" skills most other 7-footers have (rebounding and interior defense). Obviously he's still young and could improve in those areas - although he hasn't shown much improvement in those areas this year over last. While Dirk isn't a great defender either, he's a very solid rebounder.

Aldridge came into camp last year as a skinny kid with a sweet mid range jumper and the ability to run the court. In spite of a slightly torn shoulder muscle that required surgery and caused him to lay-off the weights for over two months and miss the beginning of the regular season, by January he'd put on 15 lbs. of muscle and was able to very effectively play center during February and March. He also worked hard at improving his low post, back to the basket moves during the off season so he wouldn't be just a one-dimensional jump shooter. He's now extremely hard to stop on the low blocks and can get his shot of against just about anyone (look for the YouTube video of the 27 points he scored on Tim Duncan in the season opener for a great example of his improved low post game).

I guess my point is, so far Aldridge has shown much more improvement and the ability to address the weaknesses in his game much more than Bargnani has. He's a hard worker AND more athletic than Bargnani. Based on his hard work and progress so far, I have no doubt Aldridge will continue to improve and reach his full potential. Believe me, as a Blazer fan I'm sick and tired of watching guys with HUGE potential and amazing physical gifts (Darius Miles, Rasheed Wallace, etc.) fail to reach their full potential because they lack the work ethic necessary to take full advantage of their natural talents. I'm not comparing Bargnani to those guys, just saying having potential and reaching your potential are two very different things. Bargnani does indeed have a unique skill set for a player his size, but he needs to really work on improving his weaknesses to reach that elusive "upside" you're banking on. I'm not saying he won't get there, just that he still he a long way to go before he can justify the "next Dirk" expectations.

BNM


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Thomas I'm not sure of, but I think Gay definately would have been a better pick if only because he doesn't play the same position as your franchise player, and I think Gay is going to be a star.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Forget about numbers, it's hard to find more comparable players than Bosh and Aldridge. Lamarcus is in the same situation (but with the better team) as CB in his early career, which makes things a little easier (the Blazers are actually pretty solid despite being SO young).


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

That said, Bargnani is still the Cadillac of developmental scoring centers. He plays a different game but he opens things up more than anyone else would for our man CB4.


----------



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

SkywalkerAC said:


> That said, Bargnani is still the Cadillac of developmental scoring centers. He plays a different game but he opens things up more than anyone else would for our man CB4.


Yet with him starting next to Bosh this season, Bosh's scoring and rebounding numbers are both way down. Is that just a coincidence? Is it all on Bosh, or is it that they sometimes get in each other's way on offense?

Also, starting Bargs and Bosh together creates problems with interior defense and rebounding. Which is why, when healthy, Rasho starts at center. Bargnani, at this point in his career, just doesn't provide the tough interior defense necessary to match up with opposing centers. His BEST position seems to be power forward - where he played last night with Bosh out. He had his best game of the season and scored a career high 26 points. Both Bosh and Bargnani seem best suited to playing the 4. So, playing them together means one of them isn't playing his best position. I think they'll work that out eventually on the offensive end, because as you mention, they do have complimentary offensive skills. However, unless Bargnani can become a better, stronger interior defender and rebounder, it will continue to be an issue on the other end. He's still young. So, the possibility that he will improve in these areas is still certainly within reason, but he does need to add strength and toughness if he's going to be a full time starting center in the NBA - even in "today's NBA" that seems to be placing more emphasis on thinner, quicker finesse players over traditional low post, physical centers.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yet with him starting next to Bosh this season, Bosh's scoring and rebounding numbers are both way down. Is that just a coincidence? Is it all on Bosh, or is it that they sometimes get in each other's way on offense?


Bosh's slow start has nothing to do with Bargnani. Bosh wasn't in shape to start the season and had to get work himself back to "Bosh caliber" play. It was in Dallas where Bosh broke out of his slump with 31 and 12, followed by 22 and 19 in Memphis and finally a career high of 41 points in Cleveland. Bargnani started all 3 of those games and the couple prior to those after Nesterovic went out with an injury.

They have their problems defensively when matched up against big centers (about 6-7 of them in the league) but offensively they have no problems playing side by side. As I said in another thread, in order for the Raptors to play a Bosh and Bargnani frontcourt, they must have a SF that can rebound and defend and cannot be simply a shooter like Kapono. Since Jamario Moon got inserted into the starting lineup, he has become that guy who fit all of those descriptions and has even become our best shot blocker. The Raptors will still have to rely on Rasho to bang with the likes of Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, Shaq, Big Z, and others, but against most teams, the frontcourt of Bargnani/Bosh/Moon is more than adequate defense-wise and rebounding-wise.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> Bosh's slow start has nothing to do with Bargnani. Bosh wasn't in shape to start the season and had to get work himself back to "Bosh caliber" play. It was in Dallas where Bosh broke out of his slump with 31 and 12, followed by 22 and 19 in Memphis and finally a career high of 41 points in Cleveland. Bargnani started all 3 of those games and the couple prior to those after Nesterovic went out with an injury.


Fair enough. You see them play night in and night out. I only catch an occasional game on the satellite and check the box scores. That's why I asked the questions about Bosh's slow start.



seifer0406 said:


> They have their problems defensively when matched up against big centers (about 6-7 of them in the league) but offensively they have no problems playing side by side. As I said in another thread, in order for the Raptors to play a Bosh and Bargnani frontcourt, they must have a SF that can rebound and defend and cannot be simply a shooter like Kapono. Since Jamario Moon got inserted into the starting lineup, he has become that guy who fit all of those descriptions and has even become our best shot blocker. The Raptors will still have to rely on Rasho to bang with the likes of Dwight Howard, Yao Ming, Shaq, Big Z, and others, but against most teams, the frontcourt of Bargnani/Bosh/Moon is more than adequate defense-wise and rebounding-wise.


You can (hopefully) add Oden to that list eventually. I know there has been this supposed trend to smaller, sleeker, more finesse, jump shooting big men, but how many titles have those guys won? Exactly zero. It's still the teams with the traditional dominant low post big men, the Shaqs and Duncans of the world, that are winning all the titles. And even during the Jordan era, if you didn't have a dominant big man, you better have at least two great, first team all-defense caliber defenders if you want to win a title. In Jordan's case they actually had two first team all-defense (Jordan and Pippen) and other second team all-defense (Horace Grant) during their first three championships and replaced Grant with a pretty decent defender in Rodman for the second three. 

Every championship team since 1980, with the exception of the 2004 Pistons, has had either a dominant big man, or two players who were first team all-defense. And those 2004 Pistons had the 2004 DPOY (Ben Wallace), plus two more perimeter defenders (Prince and Billups that were outstanding defenders who both made 2nd team all-defense the season following their championship. 

The Spurs have a dominant big man in Duncan, who is also a regular first or second team all-defense selection. Plus they have Bruce Bowen who makes first team all-defense on a regular basis. They have the ideal combination of a dominant low post big man combined with an outstanding interior defender (Duncan again) and outstanding perimeter defender (Bowen). Moon was a great pick-up and his defense so far (from what little I've seen) looks great. Whether or not he can sustain that for an entire season, or over a career, is yet to be seen, but at least he has that potential.

But that still leaves you without a dominant low post big man and weak on the interior defense (assuming the long term plan is to play Bargnani at center and Bosh at power forward). It may not be impossible to win a championship without a dominant center or two first team all-defense caliber defenders, but nobody has done so in over 27 years. Perhaps the Raptors will reverse that trend. It's the single most important reason I was for the Blazers taking Oden over Durant in the draft. Oden has all the tools to be that once a decade dominant center - and a great defender - that can lead a team to a championship.

So, while the Raps may skate by many teams lacking a dominant center in the regular season with weak interior defense, come play-off time, when the games usually slow down and become more physical, they will have to get through the Shaqs (or maybe not with the way Miami is playing this year), Howards, Yaos, Duncans, and eventually Odens of the world. Heck, even though KG isn't as physical as Howard, Shaq, etc. he presents match-up problems for the Raptors with a Bosh/Bargnani starting front court.

The whole reason some teams went away from a team with a big, physical center was simply the lack of quality centers in the league. Given the choice, there isn't a GM in the league that would take a soft, finesse, perimeter oriented center over a Shaq (in his prime), Duncan, Howard, Yao or Oden type big man. So, lacking one, you make due with what you have. It may get you 60 wins in the regular season, but to date, it hasn't won anybody a championship (or in the case of Dallas last season with their REGULAR SEASON MVP Dirk, not even out of the first round).

BNM


----------



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

P.S. I'm not saying Colangelo made a mistake taking Bargnani No. 1 in the draft. There simply wasn't a Shaq, Duncan, Oden caliber big man prospect in that draft (as there isn't in most drafts). So, you take the guy you think is the BPA. For Colangelo, that player was Bargnani. I preferred Aldridge (then and now), but Bargnani has shown enough talent and potential to validate Colangelo's choice in taking him No. 1. He may, or may not end up being THE best player from that draft class. We won't know that for several more years. But he's already shown he's not an Olowokandi/Kwame level bust. He'll certainly have a better career than those guys.

Also, I'm not saying the Raps CAN'T win a championship with a Bosh/Bargnani front court, just that it would be extremely unlikely unless either Bargs vastly improves his interior defense and rebounding OR Moon develops into a Bruce Bowen level defender AND they add a second all-defense caliber defender to the roster. The play-offs are tough and dominant big men and great defense are still the proven formulas for winning NBA titles.

BNM


----------



## Husky (Nov 15, 2007)

Boob-No-More said:


> P.S. I'm not saying Colangelo made a mistake taking Bargnani No. 1 in the draft...Also, I'm not saying the Raps CAN'T win a championship with a Bosh/Bargnani front court.
> 
> BNM


Why not? I think you'd be right on both counts. You could make an argument that Araujo at #8 was a better pick than Bargnani at #1. What do great white hopes Radojevic, Bradley, Araujo and Bargnani all have in common? Oh wait, I answered my own question.:lol:

I still can't figure out if Bargnani is 1, just a bad mistake; 2, a PR campaign to convert some of Toronto's 500K Italian community from Hockey/Futbol; or 3, another move in Colangelo's strategy to Romanize the NBA (D'Antoni, Iavaroni, Gherardini)

Upside is great, but so is a 7-footer with an inside game.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> P.S. I'm not saying Colangelo made a mistake taking Bargnani No. 1 in the draft. There simply wasn't a Shaq, Duncan, Oden caliber big man prospect in that draft (as there isn't in most drafts). So, you take the guy you think is the BPA. For Colangelo, that player was Bargnani. I preferred Aldridge (then and now), but Bargnani has shown enough talent and potential to validate Colangelo's choice in taking him No. 1. He may, or may not end up being THE best player from that draft class. We won't know that for several more years. But he's already shown he's not an Olowokandi/Kwame level bust. He'll certainly have a better career than those guys.
> 
> Also, I'm not saying the Raps CAN'T win a championship with a Bosh/Bargnani front court, just that it would be extremely unlikely unless either Bargs vastly improves his interior defense and rebounding OR Moon develops into a Bruce Bowen level defender AND they add a second all-defense caliber defender to the roster. The play-offs are tough and dominant big men and great defense are still the proven formulas for winning NBA titles.
> 
> BNM


The style of play has changed drastically over the past 20 years. It is quite evident that the league is moving towards a faster paced, offensive oriented game. It is true that teams with dominant inside players have won more in the past, but you can't ignore that more and more teams that plays an unconventional lineup are having increased success this past decade. Phoenix was close last year, the Mavs probably would've won a championship if they played well for 1 more quarter, the Pistons have been great for a long time without a dominant interior scorer. These teams haven't gotten over the hump yet, but there have been many close calls and you'd think one of these years it will happen.

Even if interior defense and rebounding becomes a major issue for the Raptors, they can always just get a specialist to cover those areas. It is difficult to acquire Tim Duncan or Yao Ming, or Dwight Howard, but it's not impossible to get a Diop, Ratliff, or Jeff Foster type of player. I honestly don't see why that the Raptors championship hopes will depend on whether or not Bargnani becomes an interior force. As long as Andrea Bargnani develops and become the best Andrea Bargnani that he can be, there are plenty of things that Colengelo can do to accommodate for his weaknesses. It is way too early to say that the path the Raptors taking right now is a wrong one or is a right one especially with a proven GM like Colengelo running the show.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

southeasy said:


> Moon can do what Gay does with better defensive numbers.


Stop, Moon has just started to get time and you say this. Hes been in the league how long?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

TRON said:


> Even in hingsight I think the draft worked out as anticipated
> 
> - Aldridge and Roy were tabbed as the most ready to contribute but with the probably the lowest ceilings (true)


How so?



> - Gay and Thomas were tabbed as athletic freaks with not many skills to speak of (true)


Please explain?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Nevermind TRON, I read your latter posts


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> The style of play has changed drastically over the past 20 years. It is quite evident that the league is moving towards a faster paced, offensive oriented game. It is true that teams with dominant inside players have won more in the past, but you can't ignore that more and more teams that plays an unconventional lineup are having increased success this past decade.


Naturally, with more teams playing that style, there are bound to be more that are successful at it. However, I'll say it again, the next "new NBA" style team to win a title will be the first. They've been doing it or a decade and have ZERO titles to show for it. Sure, Dallas and Phoenix win 60 regular season games, get multiple guys on the all-star team with their inflated stats and their best players win the regular season MVP award. Yet they have ZERO titles a ZERO finals MVP awards. Their regular season success has not translated into post season success - and that's what really matters.

So, that begs the question do teams play this style because they think it's the best recipe for winning a championship, or do they simply play this style because they have no choice due to the lack of quality, traditional low post big men entering the league over the last 10 years. I propose it's the latter. With the flood of high school to NBA players, international players and kids with only a single year of college, big men simply aren't learning traditional low post moves prior to entering the league. Bk when most guys played 4 years of college, you had a flood of big men entering the league that already had highly developed low post skills. Not all of them were physically dominant freaks like Shaq, in fact most weren't, but the thing they all had in common was highly developed good solid low post fundamental skills.

Lacking a dominant big man, if you have enough talented smaller, quicker players and/or softer perimeter oriented big men, you can win a lot of regular season games. As you mentioned, there are only 6 or 7 dominant low post players in the league right now. So, on most nights, if you're good at playing fast and small (where "small" refers more to style of play than actual physical size - for example, Bargnani at 7' 250 lbs. is physically big, but he plays small). However, once you enter the post season, you eventually run into one of those 6 or 7 dominant low post big men and then it's all over.



seifer0406 said:


> Phoenix was close last year, the Mavs probably would've won a championship if they played well for 1 more quarter


"Close" and "probably" don't win rings. Neither do teams that play soft and small.



seifer0406 said:


> the Pistons have been great for a long time without a dominant interior scorer.


But the Pistons didn't play soft and small. They had the DPOY at center and two excellent (2nd team all-defense) perimeter defenders on their team. They weren't a run and gun, perimeter oriented team like Phoenix or Dallas. They were a tough defensive team with excellent half-court offensive execution. Their leading scorer, Rip Hamilton, although playing shooting guard, didn't just hang out at the 3-point line and fire away. He did most of his scoring by coming off screens and popping short to mid-range jumpers. While they lacked a dominant offensive center, they were a tough, defensive team with a grind-it-out half court offense.



seifer0406 said:


> These teams haven't gotten over the hump yet, but there have been many close calls and you'd think one of these years it will happen.


It very well might, and when it does it will be a first.



seifer0406 said:


> Even if interior defense and rebounding becomes a major issue for the Raptors, they can always just get a specialist to cover those areas.


And where is this specialist going to play? If you put him at center, where does that leave Bargnani. If you move Bargs to SF, then you lose Moon - you're best defender.



seifer0406 said:


> It is difficult to acquire Tim Duncan or Yao Ming, or Dwight Howard, but it's not impossible to get a Diop, Ratliff, or Jeff Foster type of player.


You already have one of those type players in Rasho. Do you think a front line of Rasho, Bosh and Bargnani is good enough to win a championship. Like Dallas and Phoenix, the Raptors had great regular season success last year. Also like Dallas and Phoenix they got bumped from the play-offs by a lower seeded team.



seifer0406 said:


> I honestly don't see why that the Raptors championship hopes will depend on whether or not Bargnani becomes an interior force.


I didn't say Bargnani HAD to become an interior force for Toronto to win a championship. I said, based on both recent and longer term history, either he needs to improve his interior defense and rebounding, OR Toronto needs to add TWO first team all-defense caliber defenders to their line-up to become a title contender. That's what the last 27 years of history have shown us - either a dominant big man OR multiple great defenders is the key to winning an NBA championship.



seifer0406 said:


> As long as Andrea Bargnani develops and become the best Andrea Bargnani that he can be, there are plenty of things that Colengelo can do to accommodate for his weaknesses. It is way too early to say that the path the Raptors taking right now is a wrong one or is a right one especially with a proven GM like Colengelo running the show.


I don't doubt that Colangelo is a bright guy and has a good plan, but until one of his teams wins a title, he has not proven he can assemble a championship team. The proof lies in the results. He can be the brightest guy in the world, but that alone doesn't win you a championship. Winning a championship is hard. It gets a whole lot harder when one of your best players has severe weaknesses in his game that others have to cover up. Either that player needs to improve those areas significantly (not imposible given Bargnani's age and physical attributes), OR you need to surround with players who are great at the things others are lacking. So, either Bargs needs to substantially improve his interior defense and rebounding or you need to get others who are exceptional in those areas - and then figure out how to get them all on the court at the same time.

BNM


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Bargnani's defense and the Raptors defense is just fine for year 2. It needs to get better to reach championship calibre but both are already better than last year.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Naturally, with more teams playing that style, there are bound to be more that are successful at it. However, I'll say it again, the next "new NBA" style team to win a title will be the first. They've been doing it or a decade and have ZERO titles to show for it. Sure, Dallas and Phoenix win 60 regular season games, get multiple guys on the all-star team with their inflated stats and their best players win the regular season MVP award. Yet they have ZERO titles a ZERO finals MVP awards. Their regular season success has not translated into post season success - and that's what really matters.


This trend of basketball started to flourish in Dallas with Nash and Nowitzki, it is not like people have been trying it for decades and continued to fail. As you said, there isn't an abundance of Shaq/Duncan/Olajuwan out there, thus naturally teams are looking for alternatives. For the amount of time that people have been trying this formula, there have already been several close calls to suggest that playing unconventional lineups may be a path to championships. Regular season success is still success. If a unconventional team can win 60+ games a year, they have a legitimate shot of winning the title. It might not have happened yet, but I don't think it's rational to write off a 60+ win team simply because they don't have dominant interior players.




Boob-No-More said:


> "Close" and "probably" don't win rings. Neither do teams that play soft and small.


There is nothing out there that will "guarantee" you a ring. That's why games are played on the court and not through analysis.




> And where is this specialist going to play? If you put him at center, where does that leave Bargnani. If you move Bargs to SF, then you lose Moon - you're best defender.


For certain matchups, the Raptors could have the specialist start in place of Bargnani or even Bosh. It is similar to the Suns moving Kurt Thomas into the starting lineup in order to guard Tim Duncan. The specialist doesn't need to play 40 minutes a game, he just need to be available for certain situations and provide that particular dimension for the team.




> You already have one of those type players in Rasho. Do you think a front line of Rasho, Bosh and Bargnani is good enough to win a championship. Like Dallas and Phoenix, the Raptors had great regular season success last year. Also like Dallas and Phoenix they got bumped from the play-offs by a lower seeded team.


Rasho is a decent defender and rebounder, but he isn't a specialist as he doesn't do anything outstanding in particular. Bosh and Bargnani right now are not championship caliber players. When they are both in their prime, if you stick someone like a Varejao, Diop, or even Jeff Foster in there, it is more than likely that it will be good enough to win a championship.

Lastly, to compare the Raptors of last year to Phoenix and Dallas just doesn't make any sense at all. First of all, the Raptors lost last year mostly due to perimeter defense. We had no answer for Jefferson and VC and Kidd punished Ford for 6 games posting him up at every opportunity. It was also the first playoff series for pretty much everybody, therefore experience wise we weren't even close. To say that because all 3 of those teams lost last year because they play a similar style of basketball is really stretching your argument as the 3 of them lost for completely different reasons.


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

I didn't read all the posts but I will say I wanted Aldridge at the time. The only thing I didn't like about Aldridge was that he seemed skinnier than Bosh and needed to hit the weight room hard if he were to play center in the NBA (little did I know a year later he'd be the lone big man on the Blazers, carrying their entire team). Even then Aldridge was more of a sure thing. The guy actually has a pretty unique skillset also. He doesn't have the range that bargnani does, or at least he isn't as trigger happy from 3, but he does have pretty good range for a bigman. From what I see, the guy is automatic anywhere inside the arc and drains 20 footers with ease. His combination of speed and quickness for a bigman reminds me of KG and our very own Bosh. Let's not forget he's also a much better defender than Bargnani. The raptors would look pretty good right now if we had 'dridge.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> There is nothing out there that will "guarantee" you a ring. That's why games are played on the court and not through analysis.


Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. In the games played *on the court*, the teams with the dominant big men and/or two or more all-defensive team caliber defenders have *won EVERY NBA title for 27 years* in a row. That's not analysis, that's a proven fact. Right now, I'd say, on the court, those teams have a HUGE advantage when it comes to winning championships (27 in a row) over the teams that play small and fast (ZERO titles). Could that trend revere? Sure, but so far it hasn't. Given the choice, I'd go with the proven formula for success over one that might, or might not, work at some undefined time in the future. If you're trying to win a championship, the odds are infinitely better, at this point in time, if you build your team around a dominant big man and/or two or more great defenders - and that's strictly based on on court performance.



seifer0406 said:


> Lastly, to compare the Raptors of last year to Phoenix and Dallas just doesn't make any sense at all.


Why not, they all play a similar style and they all lost to lower seeded opponents? Their situations were not identical, but they have enough in common to make a valid comparison. You don't have to agree with my conclusions, but comparing them isn't outlandish in any way.



seifer0406 said:


> First of all, the Raptors lost last year mostly due to perimeter defense.


BINGO! That's exactly the point I've been making for the last several posts. To have success in the post season, you need EITHER a dominant big man (a Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, etc.) OR two or more great defenders (Jordan, Pippen, Grant/Rodman or Ben Wallace, Prince, Billups). Right now the Raptors have neither and my point all along has been either Bargnani needs to become that dominant big man, OR they need to add two or more great defenders to their roster. Moon may be one of those defenders, but it's way too early to say for sure, and even if he does, that still leaves you one dominant big man and/or one great defender short.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. In the games played *on the court*, the teams with the dominant big men and/or two or more all-defensive team caliber defenders have *won EVERY NBA title for 27 years* in a row. That's not analysis, that's a proven fact. Right now, I'd say, on the court, those teams have a HUGE advantage when it comes to winning championships (27 in a row) over the teams that play small and fast (ZERO titles). Could that trend revere? Sure, but so far it hasn't. Given the choice, I'd go with the proven formula for success over one that might, or might not, work at some undefined time in the future. If you're trying to win a championship, the odds are infinitely better, at this point in time, if you build your team around a dominant big man and/or two or more great defenders - and that's strictly based on on court performance.


I guess you didn't get the part where I said that the trend of unconventional lineups have only started in recent years and have already had several close calls. Even then, whether or not the Raptors acquire a couple perimeter defenders really has nothing to do with Bargnani's inside game, which I thought was the topic we were discussing. The Raptors team right now is nowhere near championship caliber. The team's cap situation is great, there are still spaces to acquire players.



> Why not, they all play a similar style and they all lost to lower seeded opponents? Their situations were not identical, but they have enough in common to make a valid comparison. You don't have to agree with my conclusions, but comparing them isn't outlandish in any way.


Because there are way too many differences in the circumstances that you won't be able to achieve any valid conclusion by only using 2 factors, maybe only 1 and a half considering the Mavs actually had a center, and the fact that they lost to "lower seeded" teams. 



> BINGO! That's exactly the point I've been making for the last several posts. To have success in the post season, you need EITHER a dominant big man (a Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, etc.) OR two or more great defenders (Jordan, Pippen, Grant/Rodman or Ben Wallace, Prince, Billups). Right now the Raptors have neither and my point all along has been either Bargnani needs to become that dominant big man, OR they need to add two or more great defenders to their roster. Moon may be one of those defenders, but it's way too early to say for sure, and even if he does, that still leaves you one dominant big man and/or one great defender short.
> BNM


Then I guess you need to do a better job and presenting your points, because I could've swore we were talking about whether or not Bargnani's lack of interior defense would be a downfall for the Raptors's championship hopes. But it turned out that the Raptors didn't lose last year because of interior defense, but not having good enough perimeter people to match up with the Nets big 3. I have said all along that the Raptors needed better defense at the 3 and possibly the 2, as well as a big man on the team that can block shots and rebound. If that was your point all along, then I've just wasted my time for the past 2 pages.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> BINGO! That's exactly the point I've been making for the last several posts. To have success in the post season, you need EITHER a dominant big man (a Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, etc.) OR two or more great defenders (Jordan, Pippen, Grant/Rodman or Ben Wallace, Prince, Billups). Right now the Raptors have neither and my point all along has been either Bargnani needs to become that dominant big man, OR they need to add two or more great defenders to their roster. Moon may be one of those defenders, but it's way too early to say for sure, and even if he does, that still leaves you one dominant big man and/or one great defender short.
> 
> BNM


hm, you wouldnt call Bosh a dominant big man?

i mean, hes not a post player, but if he isn't a dominant big man, i dont know who is.

and carlos delfino is by far our best defender imo. his man to man defense is insane. moons more like a kirilenko (not the best man to man defender, but grabs a lot of boards, blocks, steals).. while carlos is more like a bowen (can lock up just about anyone)

i'd say we're a post defender/rebounder, and a perimeter scorer away from a championship.

add someone like iguodala/richard jefferson.. and a biedrins (easier said than done).. and we're holding the trophy in 2-3 years. that is if we keep bosh (or even bargnani.. time will tell how good he will be though) and jose in the process. holding onto carlos as our lockdown defender would be nice as well.


----------



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

bigbabyjesus said:


> hm, you wouldnt call Bosh a dominant big man?
> 
> i mean, hes not a post player, but if he isn't a dominant big man, i dont know who is.


No, I wouldn't. Yes, he's a very good player, but he's not a dominant big man like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem and Kareem who all lead their teams to multiple championships. Dominant means just that - someone who dominates not just in the regular season, but in the play-offs when the competition is tougher and the stakes higher.



bigbabyjesus said:


> i'd say we're a post defender/rebounder


A dominant big man would give you the superior interior defense and rebounding you currently lack. Bargnani has the size to be a dominant big man, but he lacks the interior defense, rebounding and toughness to dominate. As I've said all through this therad, he;s still young and could develop those traits, but he has a long way to go. 



bigbabyjesus said:


> and a perimeter scorer away from a championship.


I thought Bargnani was a perimeter scorer. That seems to be where he does most of his scoring and is the most effective.

BNM


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> Then I guess you need to do a better job and presenting your points, because I could've swore we were talking about whether or not Bargnani's lack of interior defense would be a downfall for the Raptors's championship hopes.


Wow, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that for the best chance of winning a championship the Raptors need either a dominant big man (which Bargnani may or may not become - he's certainly not one today.) and/or two or more elite defenders to compliment Bargnani and Bosh. So, yes, if the plan is to play Bargnani and Bosh at center and power forward, the Raptors either need Bargnani to improve his interior defense and rebounding, or they need to get that interior defense and rebounding elsewhere. 



seifer0406 said:


> But it turned out that the Raptors didn't lose last year because of interior defense, but not having good enough perimeter people to match up with the Nets big 3. I have said all along that the Raptors needed better defense at the 3 and possibly the 2, as well as a big man on the team that can block shots and rebound. If that was your point all along, then I've just wasted my time for the past 2 pages.


Yes, we are in agreement. I thought I made it very, very clear that the proven formula (for the last 27 years running) for winning an NBA championship was either a dominant big man and/or two or more elite defenders. Currently, Bargnani gives you neither. So, either he needs to improve, or you need to look elsewhere for both your interior defense and rebounding AND your lock down perimeter defenders. Right now, he can't effectively guard decent centers OR good perimeter scorers. Based on what I've seen, his BEST chance at improvement is to develop his big man skills. While he has great quickness for a 7-footer, I don't see him ever being able to guard top notch NBA small forwards. He has the size to guard NBA centers, he just needs to add some bulk a strength and toughness/aggressiveness. He has the frame to ad a little bulk and a lot of strength, especially given his young age. He just needs to work in the weight room with a good strength/conditioning coach - look what Bobby Medina has been able to do with LaMarcus Aldridge - the supposed too skinny, soft college kid - in a year. A dominant big man gives you a tremendous advantage in the paint at both ends of the court. He gives you high percentage, low post scoring on offense, as well as the ability to draw double teams and fouls on the opponents big men. He also gives you interior defense, shot blocking and rebounding. If that's ALL you have, you still can be beat by a team with great outside shooters - which is why you also need outstanding perimeter defenders. 

Right now the Raptors lack both great interior defense AND great perimeter defense. The weak perimeter defense made them vulnerable to the Nets, but their weak interior defense would have also made it hard for them to get by a team with a dominant big man in the play-offs. 

Obviously, they are still multiple pieces away from being a championship contender. The question is, can Bargnani develop the "big man skills" (interior defense and rebounding) to go with his offensive game to help the Raptors become a championship contender, or will they need to look elsewhere for those skills? If he doesn't develop into that type of player, what is his long term role on the team? Sixth man? If he can't give them the interior defense and rebounding they need, and he's also not likely to become a lock down perimeter defender, what is his role on a team trying to build a championship contender? He may still have a role, but it will be a much smaller role than he COULD have, if he could improve his interior defense and rebounding.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Wow, I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that for the best chance of winning a championship the Raptors need either a dominant big man (which Bargnani may or may not become - he's certainly not one today.) and/or two or more elite defenders to compliment Bargnani and Bosh. So, yes, if the plan is to play Bargnani and Bosh at center and power forward, the Raptors either need Bargnani to improve his interior defense and rebounding, or they need to get that interior defense and rebounding elsewhere.


I think you need to stop taking 1 post and take it completely out of context. I said that the Raptors lost last year because of perimeter defense not because a lack of interior defense. The 2nd part we are in agreement, though you need to learn the correct usage of "and" and "or". I am saying that if we had some perimeter people last year, we would've won the series, meanwhile, correctly me if I'm wrong, you are saying that the Raptors need both perimeter people and "dominant big men" to win last year. Again, this post is directed back to the statement you made earlier that somehow Dallas/Phoenix/Toronto lost last year because of the same reason. Please don't take this out of context again and wonder off.




Boob-No-More said:


> Right now the Raptors lack both great interior defense AND great perimeter defense. The weak perimeter defense made them vulnerable to the Nets, but their weak interior defense would have also made it hard for them to get by a team with a dominant big man in the play-offs.


I could've sworn that last year was the first year of our rebuilding process and we ended up improving 20+ games and made the playoffs for the first time since the VC era. I don't know which team with dominant big man we would've needed to get by last year. Big Z? C-Webb and Sheed? Tim Duncan? Yeah, we would've lost to the Spurs if we made it to the finals last year because of not having a dominant big man, but also because we are a much inferior team. I am honestly befuddled about how you can make these predictions. You need to share your time machine/crystal ball/Ms.Cleo with the rest of us if you have that available.



Boob-No-More said:


> No, I wouldn't. Yes, he's a very good player, but he's not a dominant big man like Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem and Kareem who all lead their teams to multiple championships. Dominant means just that - someone who dominates not just in the regular season, but in the play-offs when the competition is tougher and the stakes higher.


Did you foresee how Bosh's career would look like the same way you predicted the Blazers season after a 5-4 record? Which by the way, was hilarious now you look back at it considering that your beloved Blazers haven't won a single game since you attempted to convince how they were for real by bringing out every stat that was out there. What's their record now? 5-12? 5-14?


Let me repeat myself. Bosh is still only 23 years old, and Bargnani at 22 years old. They won't be championship contenders for at least 2-3 years. Anything can happen until then, the Raptors could acquire an upper tier perimeter player, and they could add some rebounding/interior help. These things are not mutually exclusive with having Bargnani and Bosh as the center pieces of your organization. The team that we have right now is far from being the final product, both in the lineup and the players themselves. Therefore it is way to early to make a judgment on what would work and what wouldn't. It is better to go with the players that you have faith in and go from there.

And one more thing is that I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. There are only a very limited number of "dominant big man" in the league. If Oden doesn't pan out, there would only be 2 of them around, Yao and Dwight Howard. If by your standard none of these other teams have any chance of winning it all, then what do you suggest the do? Just fold? Denver has Marcus Camby, New Orleans has Tyson Chandler, Chicago has Ben Wallace, Charlotte has Emeka Okafor, honestly if you ask me, none of those 4 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the championship eventhough they all have big man that's dominant on the defensive end. To me, the only thing that the past championship teams have in common is that they were all the best, if not the top 3 teams in the league. The "Dominant big man" that you referenced were also the top players of their times, and the team that was placed around him was amongst the best in the league. As long as you build a team that can achieve that status, which can be done by various formulas, you will put yourself in a position to contend for a championship regardless of who you build the team around.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> Again, this post is directed back to the statement you made earlier that somehow Dallas/Phoenix/Toronto lost last year because of the same reason. Please don't take this out of context again and wonder off.


I NEVER said they all lost for the same reason. This is a favorite tactic of yours, one you've used in past discussions, to put words in someone else's mouth. It gets very tiring, having to defend myself against things I never even said. I'll try to say this as simply as possible so hopefully you will understand it and not make up something else and attribute it to me.

All I did was point out that three teams, who all play the "new NBA" small and fast style lost in the play-offs last year to teams with worse regular season records who were seeded lower PERIOD. 

That's all I said. I made no statement that they all lost for the same reason. I never even mentioned any reasons for why they lost.

The purpose of my statement was to show how the teams that play small and fast have great success in the regular season, but are far less successful when it comes to the play-offs. Is that clear enough for you to comprehend? If not, please feel free to make something up and say I said it.



seifer0406 said:


> Did you foresee how Bosh's career would look like the same way you predicted the Blazers season after a 5-4 record? Which by the way, was hilarious now you look back at it considering that your beloved Blazers haven't won a single game since you attempted to convince how they were for real by bringing out every stat that was out there. What's their record now? 5-12? 5-14?


Way to stay on topic. Another of your favorite tactics. When you can't argue with relevant facts, bring up something totally irrelevant. This has exactly what to do with the discussion at hand?



seifer0406 said:


> Let me repeat myself. Bosh is still only 23 years old, and Bargnani at 22 years old. They won't be championship contenders for at least 2-3 years. Anything can happen until then, the Raptors could acquire an upper tier perimeter player, and they could add some rebounding/interior help. These things are not mutually exclusive with having Bargnani and Bosh as the center pieces of your organization. The team that we have right now is far from being the final product, both in the lineup and the players themselves.


Good lord, isn't that exactly what I've been saying? That the Raptors need to add key pieces (interior defense, rebounding and perimeter defense) to become championship contenders. Sometimes I think you just like to argue for the sake of arguing. The only thing I added was that either Bargnani needs to develop some of those skills, OR they need to acquire those skills elsewhere. 



seifer0406 said:


> And one more thing is that I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish here. There are only a very limited number of "dominant big man" in the league. If Oden doesn't pan out, there would only be 2 of them around, Yao and Dwight Howard.


And you automatically assume no other dominant big men will enter the league, or that none of those currently in the league will improve the way Dwight Howard has? Talk about having a crystal ball.



seifer0406 said:


> If by your standard none of these other teams have any chance of winning it all, then what do you suggest the do? Just fold? Denver has Marcus Camby, New Orleans has Tyson Chandler, Chicago has Ben Wallace, Charlotte has Emeka Okafor, honestly if you ask me, none of those 4 teams have a legitimate shot at winning the championship eventhough they all have big man that's dominant on the defensive end.


Oh, I give up. Do you even read what you are responding to? I've said it at least 20 times in this thread, but here we go again, for your benefit: Since 1980, every NBA champion has had EITHER a dominant big man OR two (or more) elite defenders. Do you understand the meaning of EITHER/OR? Did the Jordan era Bulls have a dominat big man? No, they did not. But they did have two (or more) elite defenders (Jordan, Pippen and Grant/Rodman). Ditto for the 2004 Pistons. No dominant big man, but multiple top notch defenders (Ben Wallace, Pince and Billups). I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said you HAD to have a dominant big man to win a championship. What I said is, based on 27 years of historical evidence, the proven formula for winning an NBA title is EITHER a dominant big man (Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, etc.) OR at least two elite caliber defenders (examples above).

So yes, teams like Denver, New Orleans, etc. can win a championship without a dominant big man - as you just pointed out, they all already have one good defensive player. Detroit had the DPOY playing the middle in 2004 and two more excellent defenders on the perimeter (Prince and Bllups who were both second team all defense in 2005). They lacked an dominant big man, but they had multiple elite defenders.



seifer0406 said:


> To me, the only thing that the past championship teams have in common is that they were all the best


Wow, stunning revelation, the best teams win championships. How brilliant of you to reach that conclusion all by yourself.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> All I did was point out that three teams, who all play the "new NBA" small and fast style lost in the play-offs last year to teams with worse regular season records who were seeded lower PERIOD.


Do you even read what you write? "teams who all play the new NBA small ball all lost in the playoffs last year to lower seed teams". "Losing to lower seed teams" is the result, "playing new NBA small ball" is the reason.

What am I missing here? This is hilarious :lol:




Boob-No-More said:


> Way to stay on topic. Another of your favorite tactics. When you can't argue with relevant facts, bring up something totally irrelevant. This has exactly what to do with the discussion at hand?


Of course it's relevant. You made predictions before and was way off, and you are making another prediction now. It's called creditability, and I have to say you don't have a lot in that department.




> And you automatically assume no other dominant big men will enter the league, or that none of those currently in the league will improve the way Dwight Howard has? Talk about having a crystal ball.


In the immediate future, no. And if you read what the post was referring to, I was talking about whether or not teams without dominant big man should just fold. Nobody knows when the next big thing will show up, unless you're suggesting that they simply wait for someone to come along and then try to win a championship.





Boob-No-More said:


> Oh, I give up. Do you even read what you are responding to? I've said it at least 20 times in this thread, but here we go again, for your benefit: Since 1980, every NBA champion has had EITHER a dominant big man OR two (or more) elite defenders. Do you understand the meaning of EITHER/OR? Did the Jordan era Bulls have a dominat big man? No, they did not. But they did have two (or more) elite defenders (Jordan, Pippen and Grant/Rodman). Ditto for the 2004 Pistons. No dominant big man, but multiple top notch defenders (Ben Wallace, Pince and Billups). I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER said you HAD to have a dominant big man to win a championship. What I said is, based on 27 years of historical evidence, the proven formula for winning an NBA title is EITHER a dominant big man (Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Kareem, etc.) OR at least two elite caliber defenders (examples above).


I am sorry, when I read a post in a thread, I normally assume that it has something to do with the topic at hand. If it has nothing to do with Bargnani, why are you saying it here?

All I've said was that the Raptors acquiring perimeter defender has nothing to do with Bargnani. If you don't have anything else to say to that, I don't understand why you keep arguing with me.



> Wow, stunning revelation, the best teams win championships. How brilliant of you to reach that conclusion all by yourself.


You should learn how to throw better sarcasms, especially when what I've just said was a very valid point especially if you consider teams like Phoenix, Dallas non-contenders even though they are widely considered one of the top three teams in the league.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> Of course it's relevant. You made predictions before and was way off, and you are making another prediction now. It's called creditability, and I have to say you don't have a lot in that department.


Actually it's not. What I wrote in another thread that's entirely unrelated to this one is in no way relevant to this discussion. However, since you insist in bringing it up, at least get your facts straight (something you often have trouble with). In that thread I NEVER predicted ANYTHING about the Blazers performance over the remainder of the season. If you don't believe me, go back and read it again, slowly this time, and show me exactly where I made any such predictions. You can't, can you? Of course you can't. This is just another example of you tying to put words in my mouth. Frankly that tactic has gotten extremely tiring and makes trying to have a worthwhile discussion with you impossible. It's just not worth the effort when you constantly make up things I never said in a desperate attempt to "win". It's pathetic really. I come here looking to discuss basketball, and you always have to make it a personal issue. You just can't stay on topic and present your case using facts. When things aren't going your way, when confronted with facts you can't dispute, you attack the other poster. A very childish tactic.

For the record, in that thread, all I did was show that the Blazers four wins (not five as you incorrectly stated) were more impressive than the Clippers four wins due to the caliber of the competition. At the time the Blazers strength of schedule was ranked 1 of 30 and the Clippers was ranked 30 of 30. I never said the "Blazers have arrived" and I never made any predictions about their performance over the rest of the season. Your claim that I did either is a total fabrication - once again putting words in my mouth and making up things that I never said.



seifer0406 said:


> In the immediate future, no. And if you read what the post was referring to, I was talking about whether or not teams without dominant big man should just fold. Nobody knows when the next big thing will show up, unless you're suggesting that they simply wait for someone to come along and then try to win a championship.


Did I ever suggest all the teams without a dominant big man should fold? Of course, I didn't. Again, putting words in my mouth. I even gave specific examples of teams that won championships without a dominant big man. I'm done, I made my point about 20 posts ago and the historic evidence backs up everything I wrote. Constantly responding to your childish ad hominem attacks and fabrications is a total waste of time.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Actually it's not. What I wrote in another thread that's entirely unrelated to this one is in no way relevant to this discussion. However, since you insist in bringing it up, at least get your facts straight (something you often have trouble with). In that thread I NEVER predicted ANYTHING about the Blazers performance over the remainder of the season.


The thread was about whether or not Blazers early success meant anything and whether or not it is a sign that they will contend for the playoffs this year. It was a very simple yes or no question, and from your responses you clearly picked that they were in fact solid wins rather than flukes, which would also indicate that the victories did mean something. I am not going to press the issue if you're unwilling to admit that you were wrong about the team, but it is what it is. That is of course, your posts in that thread had something to do with the topic, and that you weren't just saying things with no point in mind.




Boob-No-More said:


> When things aren't going your way, when confronted with facts you can't dispute, you attack the other poster. A very childish tactic.


I called you a homer in that thread because you called yourself a homer in another thread. If I tell you my name is Joe, and you call me Joe, that's suppose to be childish? And where in this thread did I act "childishly"? If you have nothing constructive to say, leave the insults out of it.




Boob-No-More said:


> Did I ever suggest all the teams without a dominant big man should fold? Of course, I didn't. Again, putting words in my mouth.
> BNM


I wish I could put words in your eyes, or at least wave them in front of you so you don't miss them. I said that dominant big men are very rare in the NBA, for the teams that don't have them, should they just fold because they have no hopes for championship? I asked you because there are teams such as Phoenix and Dallas that are considered contenders although they have no chance to win a championship by your criteria, and I asked you whether that's what you would suggest them do. It was a question, it's not "putting words in your mouth".

You know what, this is way off topic. This thread is about Bargnani. I've tried to go back and read everything, and your point was that the Raptors need to have a dominant big man and/*or* couple great perimeter defenders in order to win a championship. And the answer was they could still acquire those perimeter defenders to play alongside Bosh and Bargnani and that would give them a legitimate shot at a championship down the road. Am I getting this down correctly. And please, just a simple yes or no answer, don't carry another "highly disputable" (I won't say wrong) statement with it because someone might just correct you again.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> The thread was about whether or not Blazers early success meant anything and whether or not it is a sign that they will contend for the playoffs this year.


The title of the thread (poll actually) was: "Buy or Sellortland Trailblazers". My response was:

"If the goal is to buy low and sell high, I'd wait until the Blazers lose a few tough games on the road and then buy. If you wait until next year, it will be too late. The price will have gone up, up, up and they will no longer be a bargain."

I stand by that statement. Notice there was no mention of the play-offs this year in any of my responses. So please don't say or imply I claimed they would make the play-off this season. I didn't. Now that they've lost several more road games (and a couple at home), and they are at rock bottom, it would be a good time to buy as they are bound to go up from here. Again looking at this a a buy/sell proposition, now is the time to buy. Next year, with Oden back, the addition of Rudy Fernandez and another lottery pick, everybody will be on the Blazers bandwagon.



seifer0406 said:


> It was a very simple yes or no question, and from your responses you clearly picked that they were in fact solid wins rather than flukes, which would also indicate that the victories did mean something. I am not going to press the issue if you're unwilling to admit that you were wrong about the team, but it is what it is. That is of course, your posts in that thread had something to do with the topic, and that you weren't just saying things with no point in mind.


You're jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. Where exactly was I wrong about the team. All I said was that the Blazers four wins were more impressive than the Clippers four wins (they were). That's not a prediction, that's an easily verifiable fact.

And for the record, YOU were the one who took the thread off topic by bringing the Clippers into the discussion. Seems like you're the one who has a problem answering a simple yes or no question.



seifer0406 said:


> And where in this thread did I act childishly"?


Bringing up something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic at hand and putting words in my mouth is childish behavior, IMHO. Feel free to disagree all you want, but that's a tactic you've used in the past and you've resorted to it again. You may not find it childish, but I do.



seifer0406 said:


> I wish I could put words in your eyes, or at least wave them in front of you so you don't miss them. I said that dominant big men are very rare in the NBA, for the teams that don't have them, should they just fold because they have no hopes for championship?


Where, of where, oh where did I EVER say or imply that all (or any) teams without a dominant big man should fold? I didn't, and you know it. That's you incorrectly paraphrasing the points I've made (in other words, putting words in my mouth). I never said they should fold and I never said they have no hopes for a championship. Did you not see where I mentioned specific examples of teams that won championships without a dominant big man? Your paraphrasing of my stance is completely inconsistent with what I actually wrote. I gave specific examples of teams without a dominant big man who won NBA championships and yet your characterization of my argument is that all teams without a dominant big man have no hope of winning a title and should therefore fold. Do you not see how ridiculous that is?



seifer0406 said:


> I asked you because there are teams such as Phoenix and Dallas that are considered contenders although they have no chance to win a championship by your criteria, and I asked you whether that's what you would suggest them do. It was a question, it's not "putting words in your mouth".


Actually it is. I never said Phoenix or Dallas have no chance of winning a title. I did say that they have yet to translate their regular season success into winning a championship. And keep in mind there are multiple "contenders" every year, but only one champion - and for the last 27 year...

And BTW, yes Phoenix lacks a dominant big man. Amare is very good, but not yet in the same class as Shaq or Duncan. If Amare could take his game up a notch, OR Phoenix could improve their overall defense, they could very well win a title. I never said they had no hope and I never said they should fold.



seifer0406 said:


> You know what, this is way off topic. This thread is about Bargnani. I've tried to go back and read everything, and your point was that the Raptors need to have a dominant big man and/*or* couple great perimeter defenders in order to win a championship. And the answer was they could still acquire those perimeter defenders to play alongside Bosh and Bargnani and that would give them a legitimate shot at a championship down the road. Am I getting this down correctly. And please, just a simple yes or no answer, don't carry another "highly disputable" (I won't say wrong) statement with it because someone might just correct you again.


Yes, that is correct. If Bargnani can become a dominant big man OR Toronto can acquire some elite defenders to compliment him and Bosh, it would greatly enhance their chances to win one or more NBA titles. 

That's what I've been saying all along. And that's where Bargnani comes into the equation. I believe he has the size and basic physical traits necessary to become a dominant big man, but I could be wrong. You see him play more than I do. Do you think he can improve his interior defense and rebounding enough to become a dominant big man? From what I've seen he has the size and frame to add the necessary bulk and strength - and he doesn't need to add a whole lot of weight, maybe 10 - 15 lbs. Based on his age, he'll probably add that easily just over the normal course of his body filling out as he grows older. It's more about improving his core strength. A good strength and conditioning coach could easily accomplish that without slowing him down or sacrificing his other skills. And then it comes down to attitude. He needs to become more physical and aggressive. 

I really think a trip to Pete Newell's Big Man Camp next summer would do him a world of good. It would be a great step towards improving his traditional big man skills to bring them up to the same level as the perimter skills he already possesses. Personally, I wish the Blazers would send ALL of their big men to Newell's camp next summer. Aldridge really improved his low post game by working with the Blazers staff over the summer, but what could it hurt to have him learn a little more from the best big man teacher ever? Oden is raw and from what we saw in summer league, very foul prone. Przybilla is a good defender and rebounder, but severely limited offensively. He could sure use some instruction in basic low post offensive moves. Same for Frye, who is soft enough to make Bargnani look like Shaq by comparison. Point being, that like Bargnani these guys all have holes in their games and they are all young enough to improve. They just need proper instruction and the work ethic necessary to improve. Aldridge and Oden have demonstrated they are willing to put in the work. So has Joel, but he tends to work on stupid stuff like boxing that may keep him in shape and improve his hand/eye coordination but does nothing to improve the offensive skills he lacks.

Sorry to drift so far off topic, but my point is Bargnani has the potential (I hate that word, but can't think of a better one in this instance) to improve his rebounding, his interior defense and also his low post offensive skills. With his size and quickness the guy could have an almost unstoppable drop step. With enough work in the right areas, he COULD become a dominant, or near dominant big man and if he does it would make Toronto serious title contenders much sooner and greatly enhance their chances for post season success.

BNM


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

for a player who dominated games at points last season (though infrequently), bargnani looks confused imo. if you call hitting shots "dominating", i guess he does do it from time to time, but i mean, you could say the same thing about juan dixon... or deshawn stevenson... or shareef abdur-rahim. the rest of his skills, imo, may in fact be there, but aren't seen nearly enough to say for sure.

i'll give him some credit- i suppose he is looking to attack the rim a little more. well, scratch that, maybe not the _rim_, but the _paint_. but it doesn't look like he's learning much when he does it. i'm left wondering when it's going to click, and won't just have him doing it for the sake of doing it.

of course, the temptation for him to step out is clear. but his %'s are rocky to say the least. so the temptation is there not necessarily because he's _effective_ from long-range but more because he's _comfortable_ from long-range, which is another matter altogether.

watching andrea develop has been really frustrating imo, this year more so than last. maybe i'm not used to seeing a player with his skill-set try to translate his game to the nba, but this is tough. he can't play with chris, he can't play without him, he can't play with foul trouble, he can't play without foul trouble, he can't defend big men but somehow those same big men can defend him reasonably well (if anything, logic might suggest the opposite); it's become a frustrating topic overall. something's gotta give.

peace


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> This trend of basketball started to flourish in Dallas with Nash and Nowitzki, it is not like people have been trying it for decades and continued to fail.


Sorry to go off topic, but the small and fast style goes back much further than the Nash/Nowitski days in Dallas. You may be too young to remember it, but Don Nelson, the same coach that brought it to Dallas, used the same unconventional small and fast style at Golden State during the Run TMC days of the early 1990s. 

And guess what, the results were similar - a lot of regular season wins, but much less success in the post season. In 1991-92 the Warriors won 55 regular season games (tied with Utah for second best record in the west) and as the third seed in the play-offs lost 3-1 to the sixth seeded Sonics in the first round.

Again, I'm not saying a small and fast style team will NEVER win a championship. Just trying to point out that this style of play isn't as knew as you seem to think. Teams that employ this style often enjoy great success in the regular season, but that regular season success hasn't translated into a single championship and more often than not the result is losing to a lower seed in the play-offs where the pace of the games is slower, the games become more physical and defense and rebounding become much more critical to success than the ability to run and gun.

BNM


----------



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

ballocks said:


> watching andrea develop has been really frustrating imo, this year more so than last. maybe i'm not used to seeing a player with his skill-set try to translate his game to the nba, but this is tough. he can't play with chris, he can't play without him, he can't play with foul trouble, he can't play without foul trouble, he can't defend big men but somehow those same big men can defend him reasonably well (if anything, logic might suggest the opposite); it's become a frustrating topic overall. something's gotta give.


So, what's the answer? Try to develop his big man skills and play him at center (that has the best chance for success, IMHO) or let him be a 7-foot perimeter player (either starting at small forward or coming off the bench in a sixth man instant offense role)? I can't see the Raptors trading him. That glorious upside that convinced Brain Colengelo to take him No. 1 overall is still there. And, his skills seem to match the "European style" the Raps seem committed to playing. So, why isn't he thriving in this system and what needs to change to make sure he does?

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> The title of the thread (poll actually) was: "Buy or Sellortland Trailblazers". My response was:


The Poll title was actually was



> Portland will contend for the playoffs this season


Just go back and read the whole thread.



Boob-No-More said:


> Actually it is. I never said Phoenix or Dallas have no chance of winning a title. I did say that they have yet to translate their regular season success into winning a championship. And keep in mind there are multiple "contenders" every year, but only one champion - and for the last 27 year...





Boob-No-More said:


> "Close" and "probably" don't win rings. Neither do teams that play soft and small.


And of course, pretty much the rest of your argument is in support of Dallas and Phoenix not being contenders. Wheres the dominant big man, wheres are the defenders?

You seem to be a master at implying things through your posts and not admitting them because you somehow have the idea that as long as you don't say it word by word, you can always wiggle out of it when it backfires on you. Imagine going to your friend and telling him that he's "not very smart", "gullible", and "pretty much fails everything he does", yet when he asks you whether or not you're calling him stupid, you can say that those words never came out of your mouth, because that would be rude. You want to talk about tactics, that one isn't even that uncommon. Read between the lines. You might not do it, but don't expect others not to. And when they do, don't be surprised about the responses. 



> Sorry to go off topic, but the small and fast style goes back much further than the Nash/Nowitski days in Dallas. You may be too young to remember it, but Don Nelson, the same coach that brought it to Dallas, used the same unconventional small and fast style at Golden State during the Run TMC days of the early 1990s.


The Warrior team back then was nowhere near as talented, especially athletically, as the Dallas and Phoenix teams of today, it is more comparable to the Warriors of 07'. It was basically 3 guards running the show without much frontcourt depth, if they kept Chris Webber and added him to the mix, they might have mounted to something but the team couldn't stick together because of chemistry problems. The style of basketball may be similar, but back then the players weren't athletic enough to make it work, which is why it only started to flourish in Dallas and Phoenix with teams that repeated won over 60 games in the regular season, not a team that drifted in the 40s with a single 55 win season.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> And of course, pretty much the rest of your argument is in support of Dallas and Phoenix not being contenders.


Once again, putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said they weren't contenders. Never, ever, ever said that. What I said is their success in the regular season has not translated into comparable success in the post season. Yes, they are contenders who have each won 60 or more games more than once in recent years, but neither has won an NBA title.



seifer0406 said:


> Wheres the dominant big man


I already said Amare is a very good big man, but not quite in the same elite group as Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, etc. So, the Suns have a big man who is good enough to make them contenders - he was first team all-NBA last year, but not quite able to carry them to a title - yet. He's young and can still improve.



seifer0406 said:


> wheres are the defenders?


Here's one: Raja Bell who was first team all-defense 2006-07. They also have Shawn Marion. He's not an elite defender, but he's very good. So, once again, they are close. If Phoenix does win a title, I suspect it will be because they improve their defense enough to get them past the Spurs, Rockets, Jazz, etc. Not because they improve their already very potent offense. 

So yes, they are close to winning a title. They are definitely contenders, and could win a title with their current personnel if they can turn up the defense a notch in the post season. They are that close, but haven't won it yet. Last year they couldn't contain Duncan and they also had trouble stopping the penetration of Parker and Ginobili.



seifer0406 said:


> You seem to be a master at implying things through your posts and not admitting them because you somehow have the idea that as long as you don't say it word by word, you can always wiggle out of it when it backfires on you.


I do no such thing. I provide straight forward opinions based on easily verifiable facts. If you choose to "read between the lines" and imagine there are things there I didn't say that's your problem, not mine.



seifer0406 said:


> The Warrior team back then was nowhere near as talented, especially athletically, as the Dallas and Phoenix teams of today, it is more comparable to the Warriors of 07'. It was basically 3 guards running the show without much frontcourt depth, if they kept Chris Webber and added him to the mix, they might have mounted to something but the team couldn't stick together because of chemistry problems. The style of basketball may be similar, but back then the players weren't athletic enough to make it work, which is why it only started to flourish in Dallas and Phoenix with teams that repeated won over 60 games in the regular season, not a team that drifted in the 40s with a single 55 win season.


I never said it "started to flourish" with the Golden State teams of the early 1990s. I said that's where the small and fast style originated. Not, as you claimed with the Nash/Nowitski Nelson coached Dallas teams. In fact, the fast paced perimeter oriented offensive style goes back even further to Nelson's Bucks teams of the mid 1980s. The difference being those teams also played some pretty good defense. In the early 1980s, he had a pretty good center in Bob Lanier - who while on the downside of his career was still a serviceable traditional low post center. Once Lanier retired, without a scoring threat at center, Nelson geared his offense more and more towards a faster paced perimeter oriented game. That was the foundation of the offense he brought to Golden State and later Dallas. It's not a sudden, recent development, but an evolution of an offensive style that began over 20 years ago. In any case, no matter if the style started 5 years ago or or 25, no team playing this style has won an NBA title, and most have underachieved in the play-offs by losing to lower seeded teams. Last year's Dallas squad being the prime example. They won 67 regular season games. Only five teams in the entire 50 year history of the NBA have won more regular season games. Yet, they lost to a 8th seed that won 25 fewer regular season games. If that isn't underachieving, I don't know what is.

BNM


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

:lol:

You are unbelievable.

We're just going around in circle here, I'll just leave it here.


----------



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

seifer0406 said:


> :lol:
> 
> You are unbelievable.
> 
> We're just going around in circle here, I'll just leave it here.


Works for me. Constantly responding to things I never wrote gets very exhausting.

Good win for you guys tonight without Bosh, Bargs and TJ. Way to put Charlotte in their place. Your bench/depth is looking really good right now. Moon was a heck of a find and prying Delfino away from Detroit, where he didn't fit their style at all, was a great move by Colangelo.

BNM


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Bargnani has been frustrating this season. I'm still worried about his inability to plant and go up strong off two feet but I'm also still confident that he'll be developing into a great player over the next couple of seasons. His skill base and his drive are beyond reproach. He has nowhere but up to go in the post but his real game is curling in the lane and finishing with layup or the pull up, creating off the dribble and disrupting defenses. 

Great shooting wins games and we're going to have elite shooting. Bargnani is a part of that but he's not clicking right now. He'll find his niche and then expand it.


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

ballocks said:


> watching andrea develop has been really frustrating imo, this year more so than last. maybe i'm not used to seeing a player with his skill-set try to translate his game to the nba, but this is tough. he can't play with chris, he can't play without him, he can't play with foul trouble, he can't play without foul trouble, he can't defend big men but somehow those same big men can defend him reasonably well (if anything, logic might suggest the opposite); it's become a frustrating topic overall. something's gotta give.


agreed to the dot.

I like Andrea. I want him to succeed. I'm intrigued to see his game flourish and polished both in the inside and outside...but I don't see it happening in Toronto unless changes are made.

I know it's early to write anything off. And yes big men need time to develop, but it seems like the same excuses are used and the same cliches are made to excuse Bargnani from his poor showing in his sophomore season. I mean, just looking at the way he plays now doesn't scream "oh this kid is going to dominate someday" or "it seems like he gets it but isn't quite there yet". To me, it just doesn't seem like he's just not getting "it" at all.

In any case, I'm not jumping on trading him (yet). Wait it over 'til the mid-season and make another case for him then. It's just that I don't think I can stand using the "big men take time to develop" cliche again (nor can I stand to read it over and over).


----------

