# I love LA (LaMarcus Aldridge)



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I was so impressed by Aldridge in his first minutes ever playing in the NBA. He has not even practiced much with the Blazers and yet in 19 minutes he scored 10 on 5 of 9 shooting with 8 rebounds, 6 offensive rebounds. More then anything, He looks so composed on both O and D. This guy is going to be one of the best PF/C's in the league in a couple years. :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :clap: :clap: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

a well played game. LaMarcus was very active on the offensive glass, some luck is involved, being at the right place at the right time. Aldridge definatly has a place in this league. If he keeps this up he will be starting over Maglore.


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

BlazerFanFoLife said:


> a well played game. LaMarcus was very active on the offensive glass, some luck is involved, being at the right place at the right time. Aldridge definatly has a place in this league. If he keeps this up he will be starting over Maglore.


Hopefully sooner rather than later.

I caught bits and pieces of the game ... did Aldridge look soft and get muscled around a lot? I mean, you can't be TOO soft if you pull down 8 boards, but I'm still wondering.


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

LA played great. Barrett said that Lamarcus hasn't even scrimmaged with the team yet. He will add more to the team than Jamal/Joel/Raef. This was his first minutes coming back from injury and Nate said he was going to ease him back into games. Well Nate obviously liked what he saw out of LA and kept him in the 4th. He reminds me a lot like Sheed, but will be a better rebounder than Sheed. Very impressive game. 

LA > Morrison.


----------



## BlazerFanFoLife (Jul 17, 2003)

wastro said:


> Hopefully sooner rather than later.
> 
> I caught bits and pieces of the game ... did Aldridge look soft and get muscled around a lot? I mean, you can't be TOO soft if you pull down 8 boards, but I'm still wondering.


A lot of the rebounds were finess in that they were either short and LaMarcus was the first to get there or that they were high bouncers where LaMarcus could elevate and snag them before anyone else. Dallas doesnt really have any bigs that post up so LaMarcus just played defence on Dirk. I can see him having problems with a crafty big like Duncan or a vet like Chris Webber.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

He went mostly against Dirk and other finesse players so he did not need much strength. He did not seem to be soft at all. He elbowed Dirk in the face trying to get a rebound and skied a foot or more over the next highest person on one of his last rebounds where 4 or 5 guys were all going for the board. 

During the first 6-8 minutes Aldridge seemed a little unsure where he was supposed to be, but then he just went for it and started rocking.


----------



## PapaG (Oct 4, 2004)

wastro said:


> Hopefully sooner rather than later.
> 
> I caught bits and pieces of the game ... *did Aldridge look soft and get muscled around a lot?* I mean, you can't be TOO soft if you pull down 8 boards, but I'm still wondering.


No, and I was surprised. He looked liked a legitimate force in the paint. He didn't look so skinny, either.

I was very impressed by him tonight. Hopefully he can stay healthy. If so? The Blazers have a star that won't clog the lane for Randolph.


----------



## Trailblazed&Confused (Jun 29, 2006)

He had a solid game for any nba player, and a great game for a rookie in his situation.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Saw the game also. Long arms, extremely active. Very good rebounder. He still needs a few pounds though

I found his shooting form kinda weird though


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Wow, he just played great tonight. After easing him in for a few games he needs to start ahead of Magloire, even right now he offers more to the team on both ends and can actually be thought of as someone who can score on O.

Other than that, I was on TV! My friend said after Jack stole the ball and layed it up I was all alone standing and pumping my fist. :laugh: YEAHHH BOIII


----------



## Stevenson (Aug 23, 2003)

I was there too and he looked great. A bit like Roy in that he seem quite poised, especially for a rookie.

I don't want to get too excited, but if he and Brandon pan out as well as their first impressions, this team will be radically better. I would like to see a starting lineup soon of

Jack- PG
Roy- SG
Webster - SF
Zach - PF
Aldridge - C


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

BTW, if anyone has the game on tivo, or the play shows up on the highlights for some reason, watch the putback jumper by Aldridge. He was next to the hoop and even before the ball hit the rim, Aldridge headed toward the exact spot of the 'karem. 

This guy truly does have a 'nose' for the ball.










Ladies and gentlemen, welcome the Blazers' second entrant in the Rookie of the Year race.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Magloire was embarrassed tonight. he put up 2 points, 1 rebound in the exact same amount of time (19 minutes) that Aldridge went for 10 points, 8 rebs. 

Magloire is the new Dale Davis--getting starters minutes because he's a supposed "former All-Star" ahead of young up-and-comer Aldridge (Randolph in my metaphor). 

hopefully Nate is a lot smarter than Cheeks and latches on to a good thing quickly.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Photos by NBAE/Getty Images (read: not me)


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Wooo! Aldridge is a TALENT--that much is abundantly clear. He's a great leaper, has a nice shooting touch, and really gets up and down the court. And much to my surprise, he actually does looks like Rasheed Wallace out there. They both have a similar style of running, or loping, down the court, and they're about the same height and build. Both are limber, with long arms, and lots of bounce to their step. When Aldridge goes up for his turnaround jump shot, he looks very much like Wallace--he keeps the ball in his hands until he reaches the highest point of his jump, then releases it with a feathery touch. This guy is going to be VERY GOOD. 

After seeing Aldridge play, it's very clear that Portland had the best draft in the NBA this year, by far. Roy and Aldridge are going to be a FORCE for many years.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

mook said:


> Magloire was embarrassed tonight. he put up 2 points, 1 rebound in the exact same amount of time (19 minutes) that Aldridge went for 10 points, 8 rebs.


Yeah, Magloire is really a stiff. If tonight's game was any indication of Aldridge's abilities (and it obviously was), Magloire is going to be seeing a lot of "pine time" very soon.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't know how many people noticed that Aldridge was actually part of the reason the Blazers got back into the game in the beginning of the end of the 3rd/beginning of the 4th quarter he was blanketing Nowitzki, and at a certain point Dallas started running Nowitzki off of screen to try to get some separation between the two. Lemarcus did a good job effecting some shots too.


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

mook said:


> Magloire was embarrassed tonight. he put up 2 points, 1 rebound in the exact same amount of time (19 minutes) that Aldridge went for 10 points, 8 rebs.
> 
> Magloire is the new Dale Davis--getting starters minutes because he's a supposed "former All-Star" ahead of young up-and-comer Aldridge (Randolph in my metaphor).
> 
> hopefully Nate is a lot smarter than Cheeks and latches on to a good thing quickly.


Well put.
Lamarcus already looks better. The starting line up with Magloire is just not jelling. It's ceratinly not all his fault, but none the less he is a turn over machine with who he is playing with. Lamarcus already looks at home running the high post. You want to ease him in, but once Joel gets back I see Mags minutes dropping quick. I am looking forward to the future with a line up at the end of games with Roy, Webster, Zach, Outlaw, and LaMarcus. They are young and will ALL improve.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

his fade away looks just like Rasheed Wallace , kid looked good tonight


----------



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

Gee, no Alddridge bashing from the "draft the 'Stachies" tonight. Could it be that 10 pts. on 5-9 shooting and 8 reb in 19:11 min looks a just a leetle bit better than 2 pts on 1-8 shooting , 2 reb and 1 assist in 23:49 min?

BNM

P.S. For those interested in such things, that makes M_rris_n 6-31 (a whopping 19.4%) from the field over his last three games. I thought somebody said this kid could shoot. Well, I mean, obviously he can shoot. It's the making part he needs to work on.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

If LaMarcus continues to play well, look for a lot of Bulls fans to offer something up for Magloire. We need a big body to play solid man-to-man low post defense.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> If LaMarcus continues to play well, look for a lot of Bulls fans to offer something up for Magloire. We need a big body to play solid man-to-man low post defense.


Magloire is a big body. 

but then so am I, and you wouldn't want me guarding NBA players in the post either.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

If tonight is any indicator:

- Maglorie is as good as gone next season.
- We shouldn't have resigned Joel because he'll just be an over paid defensive big man off the bench.
- Aldridge is going to be very good.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Tince said:


> If tonight is any indicator:
> 
> - Maglorie is as good as gone next season.
> *- We shouldn't have resigned Joel because he'll just be an over paid defensive big man off the bench.*
> - Aldridge is going to be very good.


have you met the average salary for 7 footeres who play in the NBA and have an ounce of skill? 5 bones a year aint overpaid.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

*NBA Debuts by other highly-touted big men:*


Okafor: 32 Minutes, 5-9 Shooting, 10 Rebounds (4 Offensive Rebounds), 19 points
Duncan: 35m, 6-9, 10r (1), 15 points
Webber: 34m, 5-12, 7 (1), 15 points
Brand: 35m, 3-11, 8 (5), 14 points
Bogut: 37m, 6-9, 9r (4), 13 points
S O'Neal: 32m, 4-8, 18 (5), 12 points
D Howard: 38m, 6-11, 10r (3), 12 points
Bosh: 24m, 5-8, 4r (2), 11 points
K Martin: 30m, 4-16, 7r (1), 10 points
R Wallace: 23m, 4-12, 5 (3), 10 points
*Aldridge: 19m, 5-9, 8 (6), 10 points*
Garnett: 16m, 4-4, 1r (1), 8 points
Frye: 28m, 3-8, 9r (4), 7 points
Camby: 15m, 2-5, 4r (0), 5 points
Gasol: 17m, 2-5, 4r (0), 4 points


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

yeah lamarcus, thats my boy!! i really should have been bragging on his offensive rebounding earlier. the guy was a beast on the offensive glass in college. it wasnt just luck that let him grab those 6. he knows how to get himself into position to grab his teammates misses. 

just wait 'til he gets to show y'all that sky hook. i love his sky hook.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Should be interesting to see how McMillan solves the minutes situation when Przybilla and LaFrentz come back healthy.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

texas fan eh? hmm roy or la jersey?




GET EM BOTH!


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Blazer Freak said:


> Wow, he just played great tonight. After easing him in for a few games he needs to start ahead of Magloire, even right now he offers more to the team on both ends and can actually be thought of as someone who can score on O.
> 
> Other than that, I was on TV! My friend said after Jack stole the ball and layed it up I was all alone standing and pumping my fist. :laugh: YEAHHH BOIII


Were you wearing a Blazer hat?


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> - We shouldn't have resigned Joel because he'll just be an over paid defensive big man off the bench.


he's not overpaid. compare him to these salaries of other NBA centers:

Ratliff $11.5 mil
PJ Brown $8
B Wallace $16
Ilgauskas $9.6
Dampier $9.4
Nene $8
Najera $4.5
McDyess $5.8
Mohammed $5.2
Troy Murphy $8.3
Chandler $9.3
Curry $8.7

Przybilla: $5.2

The guy is getting paid practically Eduardo Najera money. That's ridiculously cheap for a 7'1 NBA center who would probably start on around half of the teams in the NBA. 

Of course, the guy is a walking injury waiting to happen, but for that cheap a lot of teams are willing to take their chances. 

Unless Przybilla has a career-ending injury (a definite possibility with this guy), we'll probably be able to trade him whenever we want to for at least some value. 

Provided his nuts get better.


----------



## ryanjend22 (Jan 23, 2004)

oh...my...goodness.

watched the whole game tonite, and wow. i couldnt be happier with a loss. LA was amazing in his debut, and we almost beat Dallas with a beaten squad due to injuries.

the double team was tough on zach, but everyone played well.

one beef though...when we had a chance to take the lead, Dixon threw up that ill-advised 3 without working the ball around. I was pissed. Other than that, everyone contributed.



LA is going to be a BEAST. him and Roy healthy...the possibilities :clap:


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Hap said:


> have you met the average salary for 7 footeres who play in the NBA and have an ounce of skill? 5 bones a year aint overpaid.


 If he's coming off the bench and on the IL multiple times a year it's overpaid. Ok, maybe overpaid isn't the correct word, I suppose I should say that we're not getting a good value on our $$$ for a backup center. 

Diop is a good comparison to Joel IMO. He's a good defender, but is an offensive liability. I actually could make the case that he's better than Joel, but I won't here. What's Diop salary? 2 mill...a good value, but nobody is calling it a steal by any means.

In determining value I also take into consideration the depth a team has in that area. In Portland's case they have Zach who is going to play 40 minutes a game. Maglorie, Aldridge, and LaFrentz could easily combine to produce in the remaining 56 minutes a game. I just don't see Joel adding that much value to this team.


----------



## crowTrobot (Jun 24, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> If LaMarcus continues to play well, look for a lot of Bulls fans to offer something up for Magloire. We need a big body to play solid man-to-man low post defense.




we'll take thomas for magloire, but you have to throw in khryapa


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

crowTrobot said:


> we'll take thomas for magloire, but you have to throw in khryapa


 I bet most Blazer fans would take a Victor for Mags straight up (I wouldn't). Now I'd take Victor and Duhon for Dickau and Mags.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> If he's coming off the bench and on the IL multiple times a year it's overpaid. Ok, maybe overpaid isn't the correct word, I suppose I should say that we're not getting a good value on our $$$ for a backup center.
> 
> Diop is a good comparison to Joel IMO. He's a good defender, but is an offensive liability. I actually could make the case that he's better than Joel, but I won't here. What's Diop salary? 2 mill...a good value, but nobody is calling it a steal by any means.


when he became the starting center last year on a team that was contending for a title, I think he more than earned his paycheck. I think that if you were able to ask a lot of NBA GM's if they'd pay $5 mil a year for Diop, they'd do so gladly. 



> In determining value I also take into consideration the depth a team has in that area. In Portland's case they have Zach who is going to play 40 minutes a game. Maglorie, Aldridge, and LaFrentz could easily combine to produce in the remaining 56 minutes a game. I just don't see Joel adding that much value to this team.


maybe if we were contending for a title this year you'd be right. all we're trying to do right now, however, is acquire the right assets that'll eventually get us there. overlapping talent, although never ideal, isn't that big of a concern, especially at center. heck, since last year we added 8 guys and shipped out at least as many. 

if/when we eventually make a title run, odds are that Joel Przybilla as our starting center will be a distant memory.


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Tince said:


> I bet most Blazer fans would take a Victor for Mags straight up (I wouldn't). Now I'd take Victor and Duhon for Dickau and Mags.


Gotta get your money's worth?

I'd do Victor <---> Mags deal in a second.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)




----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

Awesome game from LA (really needs a good nickname)! :clap: 

But man, someone needs to work with him on his interviews. I just saw him on FSN and every other word was "you know", probably the most I've ever heard in an interview that short.


----------



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

Tince said:


> Diop is a good comparison to Joel IMO. He's a good defender, but is an offensive liability. I actually could make the case that he's better than Joel, but I won't here.


You'd have a hard time making that case anywhere. Diop is currently averaging a career best 2.4 ppg. That means he's had five previous years where he's averaged LESS than 2.4 ppg. To paraphrase Charles Barkely, my grandma could average more than 2.4 ppg... as long as you didnt double team her.

In Joel's two full seasons with the Blazers he's averaged 6.4 and 6.1 ppg. Not exactly a major offensive presence, but a heck of a lot better than 2.4ppg.



Tince said:


> What's Diop salary? 2 mill...a good value, but nobody is calling it a steal by any means.


The reason Diop's salary is so low is in his first four years in Cleveland he looked like a total bust. As already mentioned, his scoring was pathetic. His rebounding was a little better (high of 3.6 rpg during his first four years), but not exactly the stuff of legends. At that time, his career high for blocks was 1.0 bpg. So, that's what Dallas had to go on when they offered him a contract before the start of the 2005-2006 season. I doubt if they, or he, thought he'd ever be a starting center in the NBA. The fact that he's started over half the games since he came to Dallas tells you just how weak the center position is in the NBA these days. His numbers have gone up in Dallas, entirely due to increased playing time, but 2.3 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 1.8 bpg from your starting center is downright pathetic.

By comparison, Joel's two years in Portland he averaged 6.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 2.1 bpg and 6.1 ppg, 7.0 rpg and 2.3 rpg. It's easy to see why Joel got a better contract (and offers from multiple teams) than Diop. Joel is also a more efficient scorer (53.6% career FG% vs. 39.7% for Diop) and as bad as Joel is from the line (49.0% career), Diop is even worse (48.2%).

So, in short, Diop does nothing better than Joel and most things significantly worse. Diop is cheaper, but he has no business being a starter in the NBA.

BNM


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Verro said:


> Awesome game from LA (really needs a good nickname)! :clap:
> 
> But man, someone needs to work with him on his interviews. I just saw him on FSN and every other word was "you know", probably the most I've ever heard in an interview that short.


Must have gone to the Damon Stoudamire school for public speaking. How about *"L" Train* for a nickname? :whoknows:


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

Verro said:


> Awesome game from LA (really needs a good nickname)! :clap:
> 
> But man, someone needs to work with him on his interviews. I just saw him on FSN and every other word was "you know", probably the most I've ever heard in an interview that short.


at least he is a better speaker than vince young


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> The reason Diop's salary is so low is in his first four years in Cleveland he looked like a total bust. As already mentioned, his scoring was pathetic. His rebounding was a little better (high of 3.6 rpg during his first four years), but not exactly the stuff of legends. At that time, his career high for blocks was 1.0 bpg. So, that's what Dallas had to go on when they offered him a contract before the start of the 2005-2006 season. I doubt if they, or he, thought he'd ever be a starting center in the NBA. The fact that he's started over half the games since he came to Dallas tells you just how weak the center position is in the NBA these days. His numbers have gone up in Dallas, entirely due to increased playing time, but 2.3 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 1.8 bpg from your starting center is downright pathetic.


following his flameout in Cleveland Diop changed his diet and commitment to be in top shape. He lost a lot of weight and earned a bigger role with Dallas. Probably not entirely a coincidence but at the lighter weight and being in better shape he didn't suffer from the injuries that nagged him early on. 

STOMP


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

Ok, Lamarcus seriously needs a nickname.....bad. There should never be a thread in the Portland Trail Blazers message board called I love LA. Never. 



But, the kid played great. I was really impressed with that one sky high rebound he got. He was seriously about a foot or 2 higher than anyone else going for it. He came down with it and got fouled. Bad ***.

prunetang


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Copyright 2006 NBAE (Photo by Sam Forencich/NBAE via Getty Images)


----------



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

STOMP said:


> following his flameout in Cleveland Diop changed his diet and commitment to be in top shape. He lost a lot of weight and earned a bigger role with Dallas. Probably not entirely a coincidence but at the lighter weight and being in better shape he didn't suffer from the injuries that nagged him early on.


Well, even with the changed diet and being in better shape, he still only averged 2.3 ppg last year as Dallas' starting center. Makes Joel's 6.1ppg look almost Wilt-like.

BNM


----------



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

And, in an effort to bring this thread back on topic, in his NBA debut tonight, LaMarcus Aldridge score as many points in 19 minutes as DeSagana Diop has scored in his last four games combined. Hard to believe Diop is a former lottery pick (8th pick in the 2001 draft).

BNM


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

When you're dealing with numbers as low as 2ppg and 6ppg it doesn't say a whole lot. I wouldn't go off saying Joel turns the ball over more than Diop despite his 1.5 TO's/game last year being 3 times as high as Diop. Numbers like that show little to no production in an area. It also doesn't make much sense to compare stats when one guy plays on the best team in the west and the other plays on the worst.

Diop gets his points off pick and rolls and offensive rebounds. Joel is the exact same way. It's not like Joel has a 18ft jumper that Diop doesn't. I've watch both players enough I feel comfortable in baising my opinion of them off the skill set I've seen, not the numbers the put up.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> And, in an effort to bring this thread back on topic, in his NBA debut tonight, LaMarcus Aldridge score as many points in 19 minutes as DeSagana Diop has scored in his last four games combined. Hard to believe Diop is a former lottery pick (8th pick in the 2001 draft).
> 
> BNM


 Aldridge > Diop
Aldridge > Przybilla

I'm excited to see if he can repeat his energetic and balanced game on the road trip.


----------



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

It should also be noted that LaMarcus Aldridge did something tonight, in his first NBA game that DeSagana Diop didn't do once all last year in 81 regular season games (45 as a starter) and 22 playoff games (18 as a starter). He scored in double figures. So, after one game, LaMarcus Aldridge has already shown he's an NBA caliber starting center.

BNM


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> It should also be noted that LaMarcus Aldridge did something tonight, in his first NBA game that DeSagana Diop didn't do once all last year in 81 regular season games (45 as a starter) and 22 playoff games (18 as a starter). He scored in double figures. So, after one game, LaMarcus Aldridge has already shown he's an NBA caliber starting center.
> 
> BNM


 Man, this Diop issue is really bothering you. You're spinning it to make it sound like we're comparing Diop to Aldridge. I think Aldridge will be way better than both Joel and Diop.

Go Aldridge! Go Blazers! Rip City!!!


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

As far as nicknames go, I love the whole "I love LA" thing as it praises the Blazers newest star while it mocks the Blazers most hated rivals.

I LOVE LA!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Amazing that the Blazers made out like such bandits in this NBA draft. Everyone was so mad, when they missed out on the No. 1 pick, but Roy and Aldridge are the cornerstones to another Trailblazer renaissance IMO. 

Usually when it comes to franchise success, a team must draft their franchise (ala Bird with the Celtics, MJ with the Bulls, Magic with the Lakers and Duncan with the Spurs).

I am not saying that Roy and Aldridge are on that level, but they are both heady ball players who play hard, aren't whiners and are talented. I spotlighted them way before the 2005-06 season as impact rookies and players on the pro level and I think they will live up to my prognostications.

Blazer Freak could probably attest to that.


----------



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

Tince said:


> Diop gets his points off pick and rolls and offensive rebounds. Joel is the exact same way. It's not like Joel has a 18ft jumper that Diop doesn't. I've watch both players enough I feel comfortable in baising my opinion of them off the skill set I've seen, not the numbers the put up.


Well, yeah sure your willing to ignore the numbers. They disprove your case that Diop is better than Joel. You may think they have similar skill sets, but Joel scores >2.5 times as much and does so at a much higher percentage. In 302 career games (280 regular season + 22 playoffs), Diop's career high in points is 10 - he's scored in double figures exactly once in 302 games. By comparison, in 290 career games (285 regular season + 5 play-offs) Joel has scored in double figures 35 times. His career high is 19 (twice). He's also scored 18 twice and 17 twice.

When it comes to rebounding, an even stronger case can be made for Joel.  Joel has had 48 career double digit rebounding games, including a career high 22 rebs (and another game with 21). Diop has had exactly 4 career double digit rebounding games - and only one game with more than 11 rebs (career high of 16 rebs).

Blocks - again, advantage Joel. Career high 9 blks, multiple 8 blk and multiple 7 block games. Diop's career high for blks = 6.

Summary:

Joel in 290 career games: 
Double digit scoring 35 times, career high = 19 points
Double digit rebounding 48 times, career high = 22 rebs
Blocks, career high = 9

Diop in 302 career games:
Double digit scoring 1 time, career high = 10 points
Double digit rebounding 4 times, career high = 16 rebs
Blocks, career high = 6

Please tell me again why you think Diop is a better player than Joel.

BNM


----------



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

Tince said:


> Man, this Diop issue is really bothering you. You're spinning it to make it sound like we're comparing Diop to Aldridge. I think Aldridge will be way better than both Joel and Diop.


Nope, I just think the notion that Diop could possibly be considered better than Joel is completely ludicrous.

BNM


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Photos by NBAE/Getty Images (read: not me)


you can see his neck/shoulder musclesare already a good size compared to the others in the picture while I think he shouldnt add too much weight it might hurt his game. But, He will fill out when he get older mabye get lucky he can get the kareem style of body thin but extremely strong. hehe aldridge = sheed and kareem had a baby!


----------



## Nate Dogg (Oct 20, 2006)

LameR said:


> Gotta get your money's worth?
> 
> I'd do Victor <---> Mags deal in a second.


I second that. I loved his hustle and bustle. I miss the kid. Scrappy work by Victor.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

yeah i liked viktor a lot and miss him


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> yeah i liked viktor a lot and miss him


Ditto! Viktor would fit in really nice with the players we have. I don't think we ever had to give him up and nothing would make me happier that seeing him back as a Blazer. Well ok there are a few things that'd make me happier.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I loved Victor but I love what Im seeing from Outlaw right now .


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nowitzki said he was impressed by Aldridge.

"I like him, he's very active, he's very long and skilled," Nowitzki said. "He can put the ball on the floor and he's athletic. I think he's definitely a great talent."



Kinda says it all


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Nope, I just think the notion that Diop could possibly be considered better than Joel is completely ludicrous.


did anyone say that? I think they are sort of similarly limited bangers who can protect the basket and get some rebounds... niether can score. Last year at age 25, DD averaged 1.8 blocks, 4.6 boards, and 3.1 fouls in just under 19 MPG. At age 25, Joel was still in missing most of his seasons due to injury, but put up some some pretty similar stats...

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3408/career;_ylt=AgbAYWZVGeD6Cl_1AgtsuWmkvLYF

I don't think it's an insult to him to compare the two.

STOMP


----------



## chairman (Jul 2, 2006)

cimalee said:


> I loved Victor but I love what Im seeing from Outlaw right now .


Exactly! I liked Victor as well, but Travis IMO is better, Webster will be better, and Udoka brings the same intangibles as Victor.

But back to L.A.......The guy has skills! He will give the Blazers multiple options when he is on the floor once he plays with the guys for a while.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

well I see jamaal being traded by the trade deadline or just let go saving $
Dixon I dont think will be picked up agian
DD could be traded or waved 

if aldridge has a bust out year how does this effect the draft and free agent signes? 

do we draft oden (which the injury might stay in school), durant? so do we draft a big pf, pf/c or center or do we go for a sf?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

HINrichPolice said:


> If LaMarcus continues to play well, look for a lot of Bulls fans to offer something up for Magloire. We need a big body to play solid man-to-man low post defense.


How about this:



ESPN Trade Machine said:


> *Chicago Bulls*
> 
> Incoming Players
> 
> ...


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ya know, I kinda like that, "I Love LA!" theme. :yes:

In fact, I think some creative type ought to re-pen the lyrics (with references to LaMarcus) to Randy Newman's hit song that they could play during certain spots of games.......................including the crowd's reponsive chants of "We Love Him!!"


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ABM said:


> Ya know, I kinda like that, "I Love LA!" theme. :yes:
> 
> In fact, I think some creative type ought to re-pen the lyrics (with references to LaMarcus) to Randy Newman's hit song that they could play during certain spots of games.......................including the crowd's reponsive chants of "We Love Him!!"




How can you have anything with LA in the title when it is the team we hate the most.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

SheedSoNasty said:


> Were you wearing a Blazer hat?


Yup.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

What happens when we start chanting "Beat LA"? Does someone think we are playing S & M games with LaMarcus?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I would love it if Nate has the guts to start Aldridge instead of Magloire. He has said multiple time that Zach and Jamaal do not compliment each other, and that's why the team is always playing from behind. He has also said it's because they are too slow. Star LaMarcus or Travis instead.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> How can you have anything with LA in the title when it is the team we hate the most.


True. Good point.

Nevermind.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

How did I know my name would be thrown out just a mere few posts in? :biggrin: 

Good job LaMarcus. Now, keep it up.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

My favorite LA play was the baseline jumper he hit over Diop. Diop was in perfect position to block the shot. LA shot it fully extended (ala Sheed) and didn't even flinch as he dropped it right over Diop's hand. There are only a handful of players that make that shot over Diop. It showed touch, poise and confidence. I'm sure LA will have up and down games, but this was a nice start and showed he doesn't have much fear about taking it to the big guys in the league.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Reep said:


> My favorite LA play was the baseline jumper he hit over Diop. Diop was in perfect position to block the shot. LA shot it fully extended (ala Sheed) and didn't even flinch as he dropped it right over Diop's hand. There are only a handful of players that make that shot over Diop. It showed touch, poise and confidence. I'm sure LA will have up and down games, but this was a nice start and showed he doesn't have much fear about taking it to the big guys in the league.




I can't decide which play I liked best. That one was good, but the rebound in the lane and immediate fall away was nice too. I also liked the offensive rebound in traffic where Dirk fouled him. If this continues Zach will be able to get a lot more offensive rebounds because teams will have to focus on both of them. It will also cut down on fast break points against the Blazers. Another play I enjoyed was when Jack stole the ball and raced down floor for the lay in. Aldridge was step for step with him. Rice said he was the second fastest player in running drills.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

Reep said:


> My favorite LA play was the baseline jumper he hit over Diop. Diop was in perfect position to block the shot. LA shot it fully extended (ala Sheed) and didn't even flinch as he dropped it right over Diop's hand. There are only a handful of players that make that shot over Diop. It showed touch, poise and confidence. I'm sure LA will have up and down games, but this was a nice start and showed he doesn't have much fear about taking it to the big guys in the league.


that shot and the rebound/fade away jumper all in one smooth motion were Rasheed at his very best. 

my favorite, however, was when Nowitzki had him sealed under the basket and Aldridge just weaves around him for the offensive board. Dirk had this look on his face like, "WTF? Where'd he come from?" Aldridge didn't let a seven foot strong rebounder take him out of an offensive rebound opportunity. Definitely not a Rasheed move. 

Roy has received a lot of (justly deserved) hype for being incredibly NBA ready, but Aldridge showed he may be even more so.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

mook said:


> that shot and the rebound/fade away jumper all in one smooth motion were Rasheed at his very best..


Mark it down: Tuesday, December 5th -- @ Detroit.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

duplicate post


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Well, yeah sure your willing to ignore the numbers. They disprove your case that Diop is better than Joel. You may think they have similar skill sets, but Joel scores >2.5 times as much and does so at a much higher percentage. In 302 career games (280 regular season + 22 playoffs), Diop's career high in points is 10 - he's scored in double figures exactly once in 302 games. By comparison, in 290 career games (285 regular season + 5 play-offs) Joel has scored in double figures 35 times. His career high is 19 (twice). He's also scored 18 twice and 17 twice.
> 
> When it comes to rebounding, an even stronger case can be made for Joel. Joel has had 48 career double digit rebounding games, including a career high 22 rebs (and another game with 21). Diop has had exactly 4 career double digit rebounding games - and only one game with more than 11 rebs (career high of 16 rebs).
> 
> ...


 So you'd also consider Joel a turnover machine since he averaged 3 times as many turnovers last year?


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

mook said:


> my favorite, however, was when Nowitzki had him sealed under the basket and Aldridge just weaves around him for the offensive board. Dirk had this look on his face like, "WTF? Where'd he come from?" Aldridge didn't let a seven foot strong rebounder take him out of an offensive rebound opportunity. Definitely not a Rasheed move.


Yeah I remember that. Additionally, Lamarcus was doing that fairly frequently. I kept watching him run around his man out of bounds to get on the other side of the basket when a shot went up. It only paid off a few times, but it was nice seeing him make the effort for the ball. He's quick enough to get away with that.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

If Sergio is The Spanish Magician, then LA should be the Texan Magician, since he made Nowitzki disappear in the 4th quarter.

After seeing Zach and LA work together for a few minutes in the 4th qtr, I think we can all look forward to LA getting minutes at C, especially when other teams go small. He can run the floor and can work the high/low game with Zach.

Once Joel returns, Magloire may be as good as gone.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

My new nickname for A_am Morrison is going to be pint since he shot 1 for 8 last night.


----------



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

Boob-No-More said:


> Nope, I just think the notion that Diop could possibly be considered better than Joel is completely ludicrous.





STOMP said:


> did anyone say that?


Yes. 



Tince said:


> I actually could make the case that he's better than Joel





STOMP said:


> Last year at age 25, DD averaged 1.8 blocks, 4.6 boards, and 3.1 fouls in just under 19 MPG. At age 25, Joel was still in missing most of his seasons due to injury, but put up some some pretty similar stats...


Tince put no qualifications reguarding age on his statement "_I actually could make the case that he's better than Joel_". He said he could make a case that Diop is better than Joel - PERIOD. That's the assertion I find ridiculous. And if you want to qualify his statement to include age in the equation, look at Joel's numbers from when he was 22. They're very similar to Diop's production at 24. Yes, Diop is cheaper and 2+ years younger, but better - no way.

I think you're referring to the season when they were 24 (Diop won't turn 25 until January 2007). The season when Joel was 25 was his best ever (6.4 ppg, 7.7 rpg, 2.1 bpg, 59.8% FG%). Let's see Diop top those numbers this year (or ever).



STOMP said:


> I don't think it's an insult to him to compare the two.


I never said it's an insult to compare them. What I did say is it's ridiculous to say Diop is better.

BNM


----------



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

Tince said:


> So you'd also consider Joel a turnover machine since he averaged 3 times as many turnovers last year?


Your original argument was that you could prove Diop is better than Joel. When I compared them over the last year, you said the data set was too small to reach any conclusions. So, then I compared them over there entire 5/6 year ~300 game careers, and now you want to present a single data point - one statistic from one season, to prove your point? Yeah right. OK, Joel had more TOs than Diop last year. Big hairy deal. He also scored 2.7x as much, had 1.5x as many rebounds, 1.3x as many blocks and shot a higher field goal percentage.

Do you also think Steve Blake is a better player than Steve Nash because Nash turns the ball over 3x as much? You can't ingnore every other facet of their games (scoring, rebounding, shot blocking, field goal percentage, etc.) and say Diop is better because he only turned the ball over 36 times last year compared to Joel's 76 TOs. Seriously, you honestly believe that one stat from one season makes your case that Diop is better than Joel in spite of the fact that Joel is clearly better in all other aspects of the game?

BNM


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Diop PER

For Career: 9.3
5th Season "Breakout" Year: 11.5
Last season, 5th year: 11.5

Joel PER

For Career: 12.6
5th Season "Breakout" Year: 15.5
Last season, 6th year: 15.3

Comparing their last seasons, adjusted for minutes and pace, Joel is 33% more productive and effecient than Diop. That is significantly better.

I would like to see someone argue that Diop is a better defender than Joel, let alone a MUCH better defender to make up for lack noted above.

One problem for Diop is he collects fouls at the rate of 6.7 per 40 minutes last season. Joel's rate is 4.3. Fouling is certainly a part of defense. Fouling AS your defense tends to indicate a poor defender. Defending more with your arms than with (moving) your feet.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/d/diopde01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/przybjo01.html


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Getting back to the original subject - y'all remember LaMarcus? - I have a question:

Those of us who beat up on Roy before the draft have come clean as to the error of our ways. How many games do we have to wait before those of us who *wanted* LaMarcus get to call out his MANY detractors??

Hey....fair is fair! :biggrin:


----------



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

Oldmangrouch said:


> How many games do we have to wait before those of us who *wanted* LaMarcus get to call out his MANY detractors??
> 
> Hey....fair is fair! :biggrin:


Seriously. The Aldridge bashers are conspicously quiet today, aren't they (not that I'm complaining).

BNM


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Your original argument was that you could prove Diop is better than Joel.
> 
> BNM


There you go spinning things again. I said I could make a case, not that I could prove it to everyone. There is a major difference in making a case and proving something.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Masbee said:


> Diop PER
> 
> For Career: 9.3
> 5th Season "Breakout" Year: 11.5
> ...


This is great because it gets back to my entire point that Joel isn't that valuable. Joel is 33% more productive but he makes twice as much as Diop. Logic would tell me that Dallas is getting better value from Diop than we are from Joel.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

So to sum things up

1. Aldridge proved he has the skills he needs to contribute in the NBA and isnt a project. He looks ready to become a stud right now.
2. Somewhere, zagsfan is being served a big plate of crow, and thats why he hasnt been able to post here yet.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Pimped Out said:


> So to sum things up
> 
> 1. Aldridge proved he has the skills he needs to contribute in the NBA and isnt a project. He looks ready to become a stud right now.
> 2. Somewhere, zagsfan is being served a big plate of crow, and thats why he hasnt been able to post here yet.


1 game does not equal crow.

I was pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's game, but 1 game doesn't mean that we made the right pick.


----------



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

Tince said:


> There you going spinning things again. I said I could make a case, not that I could prove it to everyone. There is a major difference in making a case and proving something.


Fine, make your case. We're waiting. So far, you've presented one data point, Diop had only 36 TOs last year compared to Joe's 76 TOs. That all you got, or is there more to your case than that?

I've presented data comparing the scoring, rebounding, shot blocking etc. for both players over their careers and their most recent seasons. That data shows Joel to be *significantly* better in all those catagories. As Masbee points out, Joel's PER for his career, best season and most recent season are all significantly higher than Diop's.

So, exactly where is the data to support your case thay Diop is better than Joel?

BNM


----------



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

Tince said:


> This is great because it gets back to my entire point that Joel isn't that valuable. Joel is 33% more productive but he makes twice as much as Diop. Logic would tell me that Dallas is getting better value from Diop than we are from Joel.


No, it's great because it proves beyond a doubt that Joel is the better player. You never asserted that Diop is a better value, you said you could make a case that he's a better player. Yes, he's cheap. Nobody's arguing he's not, but there's a reason he's cheap - he's not very good. Yes, Joel makes more, but he is also significantly better.

BNM


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> 1 game does not equal crow.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's game, but 1 game doesn't mean that we made the right pick.


Amazingly, this is the second time I've agreed with zagsboy this week.

It's one game. Landmark played great, but let's give him 3-4 games before we proclaim him the next big thing.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> Yes, Joel makes more, but he is also significantly better.
> 
> BNM


33% better but he makes 100% more. If the pay difference isn't significant, then his stats aren't either.

If we're going strictly off data, then Shawn Marion is better than Garnett, LeBron, and every other player in the NBA. 

I'm going off what I've seen of each player in the past year (I really don't care how good someone was 3 years ago). The success of the team the players have played for. Reliability and duriability of the player. 

IMO Diop and Joel are both near worthless on offense and similar on defense. Diop has to fight for player time while Joel has been given it due to a lack of talent/depth on the team. I feel Diop does a better job of preventing his man from scoring and getting offensive rebounds because he's picks and chooses when to leave his man. Joel's numbers are inflated due to the fact that he's not pentalized for the easy baskets he gives and Portland's poor perimeter defense give him a ton of shots to block.

I suppose I'll leave it at that because I'm not going to collect footage that will prove my point. But considering that I work for an outfit that breaks down NBA game films, I have seen enough hours that I feel confident in what I've seen. Sorry if you don't agree.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> 1 game does not equal crow.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's game, but 1 game doesn't mean that we made the right pick.


 Even though I liked Aldridge a lot coming out of college, ZagFan has a point here. 

I caught myself being very excited after the game, but its only been 19 minutes and it's possible his flaws weren't as clear against Dallas.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

yakbladder said:


> Amazingly, this is the second time I've agreed with zagsboy this week.
> 
> It's one game. Landmark played great, but let's give him 3-4 games before we proclaim him the next big thing.




I agree, it's only one game. I think most rational people in here realize he's going to have bad games as well, but what's exciting is his skill level. There is no arguing that the guy has a ton of skill. He doesn't have pints range, but with everything being said it's hard not to get excited.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

yakbladder said:


> Amazingly, this is the second time I've agreed with zagsboy this week.
> 
> It's one game. Landmark played great, but let's give him 3-4 games before we proclaim him the next big thing.


I think you need to look at what the Blazers got v/what they could have ended up with in order to decide if Aldridge or Morrison was the right pick. For example, would you prefer as the big man/swingman combo:

Zendon Hamilton/Adam Morrison

or

Lamarcus Aldridge/Ime Udoka-Stephen Graham

I submit that the NBA is loaded with decent swingmen, but the truly gifted big man is hard to find. If you have an opportunity to get talent and size, you take it. The Blazers did.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Getting back to the original subject - y'all remember LaMarcus? - I have a question:
> 
> Those of us who beat up on Roy before the draft have come clean as to the error of our ways. How many games do we have to wait before those of us who *wanted* LaMarcus get to call out his MANY detractors??
> 
> Hey....fair is fair! :biggrin:



I'll step up. I wasn't yelling not to draft him, but was concerned by what I was hearing after we drafted him. It's just one game, but LA doesn't look like the project he was touted as by professional scouts. LA has a place in this league . . . of course this is after one game, but to me, that wasn't just a project having things go his way . . . that was a player with decent basketball knowledge and skills already in place. 

After last night, I'm almost as excited about LA as I am about Roy (been excited about Roy ever since the Blazer drafted him).


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

it wasn't the points and rebounds that impressed me about Aldridge. a lot of rookies have a good opening night because things just break their way. 

it was HOW he got the points and rebounds. 

only a couple of his boards happened because the ball fell on him from blind luck. most of the time he just out-fought and out-anticipated everyone else for the rebound.

similarly, it wasn't like guys were purposefully setting him up with chippy shots. Graham delivered one nice assist to him, but I think all of his other shots were un-assisted. he created those shots with skill, finesse and hustle. 

the key thing for me is that everything I saw last night looked so smooth and veteran that it immediately conjures one word: repeatable. this wasn't Travis Outlaw going off for 6 blocks and 16 points, when you know he could just as easily go for 0 blocks and 4 points the next night. 

even though it was his first NBA game, and he hadn't even scrimmaged, he just had a way about him that said, "this is what I do. get used to it."


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

yakbladder said:


> Amazingly, this is the second time I've agreed with zagsboy this week.
> 
> It's one game. Landmark played great, but let's give him 3-4 games before we proclaim him the next big thing.


One might argue that he doesn't need to be the next big thing to be better than Morrison. 

But I digress. Aldridge is clearly not proven from one game, but he showed legitimate athleticism, skill and assertiveness. All three are great signs.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

yakbladder said:


> Amazingly, this is the second time I've agreed with zagsboy this week.
> 
> It's one game. Landmark played great, but let's give him 3-4 games before we proclaim him the next big thing.


How many games should we give Adam Morrison before we consider him the next big bust?


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Looking at the highlights (because that's ALL I can do), I see what people mean about Aldridge hustling for rebounds. That's very reassuring. His major knock was that he doesn't assert himself and "demand the ball" - here he proves that he can go out and get it for himself. He always put up good rebounding numbers in college, even when his scoring was up and down, which shows he can help us even if we stick with Zach as our first, second and third option.

He is *skinny* though. Not so much when you look at him close up - but in a crowd of players his arms in particular look skinny. But hey, Marcus Camby manages - ditto KG.

Now, if only Sergio could get some good run in the D-League, with an assistant down there to work on his defence, why, everything would be coming up roses.


----------



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

Tince said:


> 33% better but he makes 100% more. If the pay difference isn't significant, then his stats aren't either.


I never said the pay difference wasn't significant, but it has no relevance what-so-ever on who's the better player. In 1998, Michael Jordan had a PER of 25.24. He lead the league in scoring, lead his team to a champsionship, was named league MVP, finals MVP and all-star game MVP. That same year, Matt Geiger had a PER of 20.14 - a mere 25% lower than Jordan. Is there any doubt Jordan was the better player - in spite of the fact that Jordan made $33,140,000, which was over 23x Geiger's $1,402,000 salary. Geiger may have been a good value (that year), but no way was he a better player than Jordan simply because he made significantly less money.



Tince said:


> If we're going strictly off data, then Shawn Marion is better than Garnett, LeBron, and every other player in the NBA.


By what data do you figure Shawn Marion is better than Kevin Garnett or LeBron James. Did you just pull this out of the air? It sure seems that way. This is even more outlandish than your claim that Diop is better than Joel. Comparing the PER for Marion, Garnett and James shows what eveeryine already knows - Garnett and James are better players than Marion:

Shawn Marion PER 2005-2006 = 23.6, Career = 21.0

LeBron James PER 2005-2006 = 28.1, Career = 24.2

Kevin Garnett PER 2005-2006 = 26.8, Career = 23.8

The numbers don't lie. Rather than acknowledge the correlation between the numbers and reality, you seem to be ignoring what the numbers say and making up ridiculous "facts" to support your case.

BNM


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

if LaMarc has the big sky hook ala Kareem along with the rebounding and d mixed with the shooting of Sheed that would be awesome! a sheed kareem love child *happy dance* woohoo it was nice seeing him on the floor and doing so well without scrimmaging with the team. Now if ROY would get healthy (what luck ) then we could have a nice stable of healthy players.


----------



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

mook said:


> it wasn't the points and rebounds that impressed me about Aldridge. a lot of rookies have a good opening night because things just break their way.
> 
> it was HOW he got the points and rebounds.


Exactly! It wasn't so much that he put up superb numbers in his first NBA game. He did. But what was more impressive was how he looked putting up those numbers. Last night he displayed a glimpse of the talent that made most so-called experts call him the best big man in this year's draft. Darndest thing... sometimes those experts know what they're taliking about. Aldridge has has size - he's incredibly long AND skills - a rare combination.

Yes, it's only one game, but it sure was nice to see him out there showing Nate, the fans and his critics what he can do. Like any rookie, I'm sure he'll have good games and bad games as he adjusts to the competition, his teammates, his coach, the way the refs call the game in the NBA, the long season, the travel, etc. Still, there's no denying the kid has some talent and is hardly the project his detractors thought he would be.

BNM


----------



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

meru said:


> He is *skinny* though. Not so much when you look at him close up - but in a crowd of players his arms in particular look skinny. But hey, Marcus Camby manages - ditto KG.


I'd rather have a player with long skinny arms and talent than a body bulider with short arms and bulging biceps any day. There was another player with long skinny arms that had a pretty good career. His name was Lew Alcindor, which he later changed to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. He ended up as the leading scorer in NBA history. I'm not saying LaMarcus Aldridge will come close to Kareem's production, but it's just another data point to support the argument that you don't need huge biceps to be a dominant big man in the NBA.

BNM


----------



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

zagsfan20 said:


> 1 game does not equal crow.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's game, but 1 game doesn't mean that we made the right pick.


No, but he's 1 for 1 in good games vs. games played. How's that guy who was picked 3rd doing? Looks like about 1 - 6 by my count.

I liked the Aldridge pick when it was made, and like it even more now. In his one game, he not only put up superb numbers but showed off the skill set that lead many to call him the best big man in the draft. That other guy's doing much worse than I thought. With his supposed great shooting ability, his supposed ability to get off his shot against anybody and the hands-off way the refs are calling the games, at the very least I expected him to put up some good scoring numbers. So far, he's not even doing that.

Oh well, time will tell.

BNM


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> you don't need huge biceps to be a dominant big man in the NBA.


If Aldridge never gets any better than he showed last night, he's still much better than Magloire!

I can't wait to see what he does with a few more games under his belt. I am very impressed with what he showed last night. In fact, I'm trying to contain my enthusiasm, because I think we may have gotten another superstar to go along with Roy. 

I know, I know . . . it's still early and it was only one game, but I think Aldridge has all the tools to be another Rasheed Wallace--except better.

There is just something about the way he handled himself out there that showed huge potential.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Strength is more than arms.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Blazer Maven said:


> I think you need to look at what the Blazers got v/what they could have ended up with in order to decide if Aldridge or Morrison was the right pick. For example, would you prefer as the big man/swingman combo:
> 
> Zendon Hamilton/Adam Morrison
> 
> ...


And? I'm not questioning the selection of LaMarcus, I wasn't even for drafting AM. I was simply agreeing with zagsboy that it's one game and that's all - no matter how well he did. I am optimistic as to his chances, but I want to see more.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Tince said:


> 33% better but he makes 100% more. If the pay difference isn't significant, then his stats aren't either.


First, you can't fairly talk about contracts being a factor, as that was not in your original point. Shifting claims are just that. Ha Ha to that anyway. How much extra does a pure scorer, for example, get paid who is 24 points per game, versus one who is 18 points per game? Hey it's "only" 33%. Look it up. You will be shocked.

Second, you may need to rethink your dissing of "only" a 33% difference. If you understand statistics (even a little bit) and you understand basketball (even a little bit) and you understand the PER rating (even a little bit), you will know that 33% is a large difference in quality of player and makes for a large difference in wins, and their PER numbers are the difference between a space filling scrub foul machine and an average short rotation player.



> If we're going strictly off data, then Shawn Marion is better than Garnett, LeBron, and every other player in the NBA.


What are you talking about? LeBron and Garnett PER numbers crush Marion's - every year.



> I'm going off what I've seen of each player in the past year (I really don't care how good someone was 3 years ago). The success of the team the players have played for. Reliability and duriability of the player.


 You may not care how someone was past last year, but more data indicates higher likelihood of duplication. So Joel having two good seasons on teams short on talent and better career numbers IS relevant to a comparison to Diop who had one good season playing alongside an MVP caliber player who gets all kinds of attention. 

Regardless, already provided breakout of last year's stats, thus I don't really understand your point. Yes, LAST year, Joel was clearly, significantly superior to Diop. As he was the year before and for his entire career.



> IMO Diop and Joel are both near worthless on offense and similar on defense. Diop has to fight for player time while Joel has been given it due to a lack of talent/depth on the team. I feel Diop does a better job of preventing his man from scoring and getting offensive rebounds because he's picks and chooses when to leave his man. Joel's numbers are inflated due to the fact that he's not pentalized for the easy baskets he gives and Portland's poor perimeter defense give him a ton of shots to block.


Those links above already provided you with the Rebounding Rates of each player.
Last Season: Diop 14.9, Joel 16.9; Career: Diop 14.1, Joel 16.7
That info would let you know that Joel is a better rebounder the Diop. 

They also provide the Defensive Rebounds per 40. 
Last Season: Diop 6.1, Joel 7.0; Career: Diop 6.2, Joel 7.8
And, again Joel is better than Diop. Where do you get this stuff? 



> I suppose I'll leave it at that because I'm not going to collect footage that will prove my point. But considering that I work for an outfit that breaks down NBA game films, I have seen enough hours that I feel confident in what I've seen. Sorry if you don't agree.


There is little point in footage. It is essentially anecdotal. I could create a montage of MJ footage showing him blowing layups, triping over his own feet, passing the ball to opponents, and grabbing guys balls. What does it all mean?

Common fallacy. Disregarding valuable data (statistics gathered from EVERY game) because you watched a few hours of video.

Season ticket holders often will say the big-time dunker on their team is a better offensive player than the guy with the solid jump shot who never dunks. Hey, they should know, they see every home game in person.

Your eyes can and do deceive you. They clearly have here. Time for you to consider additional evidence.


----------



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

Oil Can said:


> Strength is more than arms.


And basketball is about more than brute strength. Especially, with Shaq nearing the end of his career and the way the refs are enforcing the rules these days. The days of thug ball are thankfully over. Once again, the players with the best skills will rise above those whose primary talent is knocking people to the floor. Bummer for Danny Fortson, but good news for everybody else who plays and enjoys watching basketball.

BNM


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

funny that strength is being brought up by morrison fans (I am one too), when Morrison himself isn't himself exactly built like a brick **** house.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

I think it was obvious by Aldridge's play last nite that he's the real deal. I don't need to see more games to know that, but I do need to see him play without getting injured a lot to know he will be on the floor long enough to be a all star.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

What's humorous to me is that even with all this banter between the two camps...i.e. Moorison and Aldridge, I assume all of want both to be great players. Morrison is a nice kid who has diabetes, and it would be great to see him succeed. Aldridge is of course a Blazer.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> basketball is about more than brute strength. The days of thug ball are thankfully over.
> BNM



strength and thug ball are not connected. Thugs and thug ball are connected. I don't advocate LaMarcus playing some sort of "thug-ball". I advocate him pumping some iron. 

Garnett will provide an interesting matchup for LaMarcus.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> What's humorous to me is that even with all this banter between the two camps...i.e. Moorison and Aldridge, I assume all of want both to be great players. Morrison is a nice kid who has diabetes, and it would be great to see him succeed. Aldridge is of course a Blazer.



The only two camps are my boot and your butt.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> strength and thug ball are not connected. Thugs and thug ball are connected. I don't advocate LaMarcus playing some sort of "thug-ball". I advocate him pumping some iron.
> 
> Garnett will provide an interesting matchup for LaMarcus.




He's bound to have some off games because he's a rookie, ala "Pint". It will be fun to see the board if he goes 0 for the night with a couple turnovers and gets schooled by KG. Nothing at all to worry about, just growing pains of a rookie. The board however will think he should be sent down to the D league. 

That's why it's fun to tease you guys about A_am. He'll probably be a good shooter and player, just going through rookie growing pains.


----------



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

Oil Can said:


> strength and thug ball are not connected. Thugs and thug ball are connected. I don't advocate LaMarcus playing some sort of "thug-ball". I advocate him pumping some iron.
> 
> Garnett will provide an interesting matchup for LaMarcus.


My point was, LaMarcus will be less prone to being pushed around by stronger, less skilled players simply because the refs won't allow it.

Like most tall skinny guys his age, he will add natural bulk as his body fills out. I don't think he needs to spend too much time pumping iron. If he puts on too much bulk, it could hamper his ability to run the court. He already has several built-in advantages over the average player his size (speed, good shooting touch, outstanding length that allows him to shoot over anyone, etc.). No need to try to make him into something he's not - especially if it negatively impacts what he already is.

Is anyone down in Charlotte insisting that Morrison pump iron? He's a skinny kid, too and so far his game doesn't seem to be translating well to the NBA. Maybe he's the one who needs to add some strength so he can create some space between himself and his defender and to be able to get his shot off in traffic. He certainly seems to be struggling against the bigger, quicker, stronger defenders he's facing in the NBA.

BNM


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Like most tall skinny guys his age, he will add natural bulk as his body fills out.


Natural bulk isn't muscle. 



> If he puts on too much bulk, it could hamper his ability to run the court.


I never advocated too much bulk. Strength and bulk are 2 different things. Trust me, with his frame......it ain't gonna be easy. 



> Is anyone down in Charlotte insisting that Morrison pump iron?


strength is a much more integral part of a PF/C game than that of a SG/SF. 



> He certainly seems to be struggling against the bigger, quicker, stronger defenders he's facing in the NBA.
> 
> BNM


He is indeed. I wonder if LaMarcus will struggle this season? 

He did play well his first game. Props to the kid.


----------



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

Oil Can said:


> strength is a much more integral part of a PF/C game than that of a SG/SF.


Yet, there are plenty of examples of players successfully playing those positions, both currently and historically, who weren't exceptionally strong. Players with less skill, need to rely on strength merely to survive in the league. Players with outstanding length, polished skills and other physical advantages (speed, quickness, leaping ability, etc.) need to rely less on strength. Morrison lacks quickness, speed, leaping ability, etc. Increasing his strength may be one way he can adapt to, and eventually thrive in the NBA game.

BNM


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

I'm not a Morrison hater, but maybe he, or anyone else in need of muscles, should start training with Corey Maggette. Did you see him when they played Portland. Talk about ripped. I tried to find a good picture, but no luck.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

porkchopexpress said:


> I'm not a Morrison hater, but maybe he, or anyone else in need of muscles, should start training with Corey Maggette. Did you see him when they played Portland. Talk about ripped. I tried to find a good picture, but no luck.



Do you have his number? I can pass it on to the Blazers.


----------



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

Oil Can said:


> Do you have his number? I can pass it on to the Blazers.


I like you're eternal optimism. Good to see you haven't let go of your dream that A_am M_rris_n will someday be a Blazer.

BNM


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> I like you're eternal optimism. Good to see you haven't let go of your dream that A_am M_rris_n will someday be a Blazer.
> 
> BNM



Actually, it matters not too me. I will root for the Blazers success, as well as Morrison's or any other Zag. 

I will even root for Lame-Arcus Wuss-ridge. Just as I did last night.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> I will even root for Lame-Arcus Wuss-ridge. Just as I did last night.


Did you hold your nose while doing it?


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

It wouldn't surprise me if Aldridge was our starting center by the end of the week. I don't think he is as good a shotblocker as Joel is yet but he can do everything else better than Joel. His offence is light years ahead of Joel's. When you consider his footspeed and man on man defence, rebounding, ability to run the floor, good hands, unstoppable offensive moves, bball I.Q., oh man, this kid is going to be good.


----------



## Redbeard (Sep 11, 2005)

Although I didn't get through every post in the Two-Topic thread, there is one thing I didn't see regarding Aldridge's performance. This was his first game ever in the NBA. I am sure he wasn't even on the scouting report. So we have to give him a little space to have gotten somewhat lucky on throwing Dallas off guard with his presence.

Don't get me wrong, I think he is a great talent and agree he will probably be starting if Joel doesn't come back, probably should be starting either way, and will greatly improve our start of games due to the increase in offense at the 5.

We have to let him perform against a few teams though before things are finalized.

IFO am not completely satisfied with what Joel or Mags brings to the table. Joel is the better option, but he still doesn't look to help himself enough. However, IMO he is better than Diop regardless of price. If Zach wasn't in the lineup with Joel, Pryz would be getting way more boards and a few more points. Diop would probably still be the same. Comparing price won't do anything until Diop gets his extension.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

graybeard said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if Aldridge was our starting center by the end of the week. I don't think he is as good a shotblocker as Joel is yet but he can do everything else better than Joel. His offence is light years ahead of Joel's. When you consider his footspeed and man on man defence, rebounding, ability to run the floor, good hands, unstoppable offensive moves, bball I.Q., oh man, this kid is going to be good.


And his balls aren't the size of hedgehogs! :biggrin:


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> What's humorous to me is that even with all this banter between the two camps...i.e. Moorison and Aldridge, I assume all of want both to be great players. Morrison is a nice kid who has diabetes, and it would be great to see him succeed. Aldridge is of course a Blazer.



Agreed!

Before the draft, I was a Morrison fan, and I still am - even though LA was my first choice for who I wanted the Blazers to draft.

Actually, I am not rooting *against* any of the guys from the last draft. I hope they all do well - just as long as LA, Roy, and Adam do *better*! :bsmile:


----------



## Anonymous Gambler (May 29, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> 1 game does not equal crow.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised by Aldridge's game, but 1 game doesn't mean that we made the right pick.



No, the jury's still out on Aldridge- he may be great, but one game is too early to tell.

However, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that Jordan probably already regrets picking Morrison- a one trick pony, who's one trick is successful some 30 percent of the time.

Overall, I join you in being happy that we have the favorite for ROY and a nice one game glimpse at our big guy.

And, don't worry about Morrison, you'll always have the college videos to remember. The Stache gone wild!!!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> Actually, it matters not too me. I will root for the Blazers success, as well as Morrison's or any other Zag.
> 
> I will even root for Lame-Arcus Wuss-ridge. Just as I did last night.


How can you still call Aldridge names when he cam within 3 rebounds of Pints season total?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Boob-No-More said:


> No, but he's 1 for 1 in good games vs. games played. How's that guy who was picked 3rd doing? Looks like about 1 - 6 by my count.
> 
> I liked the Aldridge pick when it was made, and like it even more now. In his one game, he not only put up superb numbers but showed off the skill set that lead many to call him the best big man in the draft. That other guy's doing much worse than I thought. With his supposed great shooting ability, his supposed ability to get off his shot against anybody and the hands-off way the refs are calling the games, at the very least I expected him to put up some good scoring numbers. So far, he's not even doing that.
> 
> ...


You seem to come across as knowing a lot about basketball.

You of all people should know that shooters coming into the league have a longer adjustment period than other players


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Anonymous Gambler said:


> No, the jury's still out on Aldridge- he may be great, but one game is too early to tell.
> 
> However, I feel pretty comfortable in saying that Jordan probably already regrets picking Morrison- a one trick pony, who's one trick is successful some 30 percent of the time.
> 
> ...


You just like to talk ****. 

I'm sure after 6 games that Jordan (who didn't have much of a say in the pick at the time) is really regretting his pick.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> You seem to come across as knowing a lot about basketball.
> 
> You of all people should know that shooters coming into the league have a longer adjustment period than other players


But I thought that Morrison was THE rookie that was going to contribute automatically. I mean, thats why people argued for gettting him, that he wasn't a 'project' ala Aldridge or Thomas. Oh, also he was going to get people into the arena. When you shoot ~ 30% you better find another reason to fill the seats.

I'm sure he'll end up doing well, and I'll root for him to do so (except against the Blazers) but why make excuses for him. Just admit he's needed time to adjust, instead of 'all shooters'


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

porkchopexpress said:


> When you shoot ~ 30% you better find another reason to fill the seats.


Free mustache rides come with every ticket.


----------



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

zagsfan20 said:


> You seem to come across as knowing a lot about basketball.
> 
> You of all people should know that shooters coming into the league have a longer adjustment period than other players


I thought it was big men who took the longest to adjust - that's why a player like Aldridge automatically gets labeled a project even though he has much better skills and a much more polished offensive game than your typical "project" big man. Call it guilt by association.

Some also say point guard takes the longest to adjust to the NBA game. Makes sense. You not only have to improve your individual skills, but you need to learn to run a team with a new coach, new offense, etc.

Personally, I think the adjustment period is more a function of the individual player than the position they play. Did Shaq take long to adjust? Tim Duncan? Michael Jordan? Magic Johnson? No, they jumped right in and instantly made an impact and improved their teams. Granted, they were all exceptional players, but it shows that it's not the position, but the player that determines how long it will take to adjust. Some players are just more NBA ready than others (see Brandon Roy).

Does that mean Morrison won't adjust? No, it just means it's taking longer (like 6 games is an eternity) than most people predicted. His one outstanding skill is supposed to be shooting the ball. He is supposed to be the guy who can light it up from anywhere. The one thing people thought he'd do is score and score in bunches, more than any other rookie. He still may, he's just struggling with his shot more than most people thought he would.

BNM


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> Some also say point guard takes the longest to adjust to the NBA game. Makes sense. You not only have to improve your individual skills, but you need to learn to run a team with a new coach, new offense, etc.
> 
> Personally, I think the adjustment period is more a function of the individual player than the position they play.


I took this on some time ago when evaluating Telfair, and showed that the league's elite point guards had very high assist numbers from (at the latest) their second year in the league. In other words, point guards tend to adjust to making plays in the NDA almost overnight.

Turnovers, steals, everything else varied from one to the next. What was striking is that shooting percentage often *did* change dramatically. My conclusion? Being a playmaker cannot be learned in the NBA; you either bring it or you don't. But being a shooter *can* be learned by point guards.

Big Men are not so easy to figure out statistically. Some figure things out overnight, others never seem to get it. There does not seem to be any way to tell in advance which players are going to be a Rasheed Wallace (picked 4th), and which will be Olowokandi or Kwame (both picked 1st). Teams roll the dice to try to get the next Ewing or Duncan, even if (like with Kwame or Milcic) it may be 4 years before they start to play reasonably well. So for big men I agree: it depends on the individual.

With regards to Morrision: often college numbers don't translate in the NBA at all well. Remember Shawn Respert? We had his rights ever-so-briefly. He shot a LOT of threes in college, and hits *47%* of them his senior year, the same as his 2pt%. NBA average over a poor 4 year career? 41% and 34% respectively.

Adam Morrison shot 49.6 percent from the field, and 42.8 percent from 3-point in college. I am pretty sure he'll be better than Respert (because he is taller). But will he get close to those numbers in the NBA? 

iWatas


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> Actually, it matters not too me. I will root for the Blazers success, as well as Morrison's or any other Zag.
> 
> I will even root for Lame-Arcus Wuss-ridge. Just as I did last night.


I know you like ammo, but Blazers before zags man.....no need to diss on our future big man who is making his presence known NOW! And he pulled down 8 boards in 19 minutes, I wouldn't him "wuus-ridge"
that being said..............
LA>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ammo


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> but Blazers before zags man.....



You are funny.


----------



## dkap (May 13, 2003)

I admit, I haven't read all 10 pages of this thread, but how can anyone who considers themselves a Blazers fan, a) nickname a Blazer "LA" and, b) fashion a nickname from initials reminiscent of DA?

My vote is for LAMA. The spelling isn't quite right, but if I stare off into nothingness long enough, I can almost see a facial resemblance...

Dan


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dkap said:


> I admit, I haven't read all 10 pages of this thread, but how can anyone who considers themselves a Blazers fan, a) nickname a Blazer "LA" and, b) fashion a nickname from initials reminiscent of DA?
> 
> My vote is for LAMA. The spelling isn't quite right, but if I stare off into nothingness long enough, I can almost see a facial resemblance...
> 
> Dan


We finally agree on something, and I am originally from Salem/Keizer!


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

somebody on here earlier used the nickname "Landmark" for him, and that'd suit me fine. you can always spot him on the floor, he's got a very distinctive game, and hopefully he'll be the identity of our franchise for a long time to come. 

seems like a good fit for me.

"Man, there was no missing that Landmark dunk!" 
"Dude just got boxed out by the Landmark." 
"Landmark is showing the Blazers how to win."


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

I agree about Aldridge's unfortunate initials. I can't read a post that uses "LA" without thinking of the Lavendar and Urine menace from the south. It isn't a pretty image. Too bad he doesn't just go by "Marc" or "Marcus" or something. :biggrin: We need to get him a good, accepted nickname, stat. I've always hated the 'J-Lo', 'T-Mac', fad, but even 'L-Marc' is preferable to 'LA.' I just can't stomach it. I'll try saying 'Landmark' for a while and see how it feels.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Nate McVillain said:


> :banana:


Spelling error in your nickname:

Nate McMillion = gets Millions of pay checks


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I hate Landmark....sorry. Can't do it and I hope it doesn't stick.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Ok I tried it. "Landmark" just has to be followed by "Ford", doesn't it? :clown:


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Gavin Dawson from the fan refers to him as the L-Train....That's not bad.


it's probably so when he plays bad he can say the L-Train derailed and then go on and on how we should have drafted Pint


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I can't wait to see the thread after he has a typical rookie let down game. It's going to happen at some point. The kid has more basketball skill than any front line player on our roster since Sheed, and people here will bash him because he is still learning the NBA. I would expect Zags and Oil Can to bash him because we do the same thing to Pint, but it will fun to read the posts made in this thread compared to the other one.


----------



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

Unfortunately, L-Train has been used before - Lionel Simmons for one, but I'm sure there have been others.

Of course, Lionel Simmons averaged 18.0ppg, 8.8rpg, 4.0apg. Not bad production for a rookie (1st team all-rookie). Too bad he played on a team that only won 25 games that year. 

I say we leave L-Train retired and come up with something more unique.

BNM


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

How about LaMarquis? A noble-man.
Wait, that sounds retarded. 
The is already a Marquis in the leauge, and it conjures thoughts of the Marquis de Sade.....which is definately a bad thing.

Lama. Nope. Uber-lame.
L-Train. Not quite.
L. Ron. Lunatic.


Can't think of one.

prunetang


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I can't wait to see the thread after he has a typical rookie let down game. It's going to happen at some point.



Especially when taking into account how Morrison did in the first game. It has been a quick slide for Morrison since that first game . . . posters have to expect that LA will have some bad games.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

I think we should call LaMarcus- "Mediocre Man" , or "BoobNoMore".


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> I thinkwe should call LaMarcus- "Mediocre Man" , or "BoobNoMore".


That is almost funny. Props for the attempted humor!


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Aldridge should be Bazooka. He's bigger and better then Ammo.


Now I await Oil Can calling him Pea Shooter....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Aldridge should be Bazooka. He's bigger and better then Ammo.




Ha, That's funny.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

How about:
Big Al
A-Train
LaMarcus "Stretch" Aldridge


----------



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

Oil Can said:


> I think we should call LaMarcus- "Mediocre Man" , or "BoobNoMore".


And I bet Morrison's teammates would like to call him ShootNoMore.

BNM


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

As many of us have said many times, a nickname bust be earned. What was the lame result of the Joel P nickname contest? Point being, it was given to him, not earned and I do not know what it is. Vanilla Gorilla? Punisher? *Lets just agree on an abbreviated spelling for his name * and let the nickname thing take care of itself.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Oh lord, now I am thinking about LamaDamaDingDong from the espn board!

LaMaster?


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

crandc said:


> Oh lord, now I am thinking about LamaDamaDingDong from the espn board!
> 
> LaMaster?


lamaster doesnt work for me. i knew someone named lemaster. not an association i want to make


----------



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

"_The name Aldridge has been spelt in many different ways throughout its history, it was mentioned in the doomsday Book as 'Alrewic' and was valued at 15 Shillings._"

OK, how about Doomsday

or Fidd-teen Cent.

BNM


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

Boob-No-More said:


> "_The name Aldridge has been spelt in many different ways throughout its history, it was mentioned in the doomsday Book as 'Alrewic' and was valued at 15 Shillings._"
> 
> OK, how about Doomsday
> 
> ...


Please, NO!


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

His middle name is _Nurae_ , can we do anything with that?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Opps . . . Double post


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

I like LA . . . in fact I love it . . . we should all love LA . . . LA, we love it . . .


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

Howabout call him LaMan!

gatorpops


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

Clearly, people are going to continue to type "LA" (shudder) because it's quick and easy. And clearly, we are getting no where trying to invent some other abbreviated version of his name that is so catchy everyone will jump on board (the L-Train). 

I agree that a good nickname has to be earned, and really come about by accident. If he ends up with one, it isn't going to be a play on his name but something related to his personality or some event or thing or characteristic. So...what do the other players call him? Tex? Slim? Rook? If his teammates haven't dubbed him with one by now, he may never have one. 

All I know is, I hate LA, and please don't let Antonio come up with one.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

LaAl


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

So far the best name mentioned is LandMark




here are some anagrams for lamarcus aldridge:
mac dad guerrillas
guerrilla cam adds
disgraced rum al al
mudd all carriages
mad dull carriages
dud call marriages 
armed surgical lad
surgical dream lad
caligula dram reds
add glaciers mural
curl lead diagrams
rude call diagrams
curl dial damagers

guardia smell card

sugared lard claim

gradual cream slid


----------

