# Quick Gushing about Roy



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

Quick is on the Roy bandwagon. He says Roy is the Real Deal:

Listen on the chat from yesterday:
http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/jason_quick/index.ssf?/live/blazers/quick_100506.html


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Hype #9 said:


> Quick is on the Roy bandwagon. He says Roy is the Real Deal:
> 
> Listen on the chat from yesterday:
> http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/jason_quick/index.ssf?/live/blazers/quick_100506.html



This is one of the main reasons I am taking MB more seriously about Roy. Quick would be all too happy to point out all the bad things about any Blazer player, so because he is so enamoured with Roy tells me he must be even better than quick is letting on.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Roy will be an awesome player to build around.


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

Ahh all the bashing I took when I said we should consider drafting him.... :biggrin: 

Admitedly alot of the time I am wrong...I think this time I might be right though. Roy looks like he could be a real nice player.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

sa1177 said:


> Ahh all the bashing I took when I said we should consider drafting him.... :biggrin:
> 
> Admitedly alot of the time I am wrong...I think this time I might be right though. Roy looks like he could be a real nice player.


sa, ahem..the fugees want you to check into their site.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Hype #9 said:


> Quick is on the Roy bandwagon. He says Roy is the Real Deal:
> 
> Listen on the chat from yesterday:
> http://www.oregonlive.com/blazers/jason_quick/index.ssf?/live/blazers/quick_100506.html


Look, I essentially said the same thing after watching a couple of summer league games as MB and Quick are now saying.

I am excited about the possibilities. I really am.

But, don't forget the sources here:

I am an internet blowhard. Ignore my proclamations on Roy.

MB is a tool of the Blazers.

Quick is not a scout. He has written glowing articles about Damon before. Nuff said about his scouting abilities.

It is starting to get to the point where Roy will disappoint unless he wins ROY going away. I would rather be satisfied with a solid rookie year, than upset he isn't Dwane Wade.

Nobody really knows how good Roy will be in the real NBA - over an entire (long) season - likely playing much of the time out of position the first year.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

sa1177 said:


> Ahh all the bashing I took when I said we should consider drafting him.... :biggrin:
> 
> Admitedly alot of the time I am wrong...I think this time I might be right though. Roy looks like he could be a real nice player.


I can admit that I did not like him with the # 4 pick. However, it appears that he will prove me wrong, and afterall, as a Blazer fan..that is what I want.

Allridge is the one that worries me.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> I can admit that I did not like him with the # 4 pick. However, it appears that he will prove me wrong, and afterall, as a Blazer fan..that is what I want.
> 
> Allridge is the one that worries me.



It's a good thing we didn't get him with the #4th pick.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Oil Can said:


> I can admit that I did not like him with the # 4 pick. However, it appears that he will prove me wrong, and afterall, as a Blazer fan..that is what I want.
> 
> Allridge is the one that worries me.


Blazers indeed had the #4 pick.

Traded that Victor Khyrapa for the #2 pick.

Traded Telfair and Ratlif for the #7 pick and LaFrentz. More manuverings to get Roy, who was picked by Minny #6.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

It blows me away how certain players can just come out of nowhere. Like Roy or Wade or Tyrus Thomas. Nobody was talking about Wade before taking his team to the Final Four. 4 years ago if you would have told us Wade would be one of the top 10 players in the NBA, we would have laughed. With all the scouting some guys still slip through the cracks. It would be interesting if one of you internet savvy people could go back and look at like a top 50 list for example. Maybe from last year,and see where Roy was ranked.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Whoa...whoa..hold up the chariots boys (and girls)...

I think we can all agree that:

- We'd like Roy to be really that good.
- We'd like to have a player to be excited about.
- We'd like to have a player who gets the benefit of the doubt from the refs and the NBA.

But I think we should wait till a couple of games into the regular season at least before we set unattainable sky-high expectations for the kid.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

According to Mike Rice



> La Marcus Aldridge did not practice this week but believe me when I tell you about LaMarcus off the court. He wants to be a star in the NBA and *he is not a project big man as I sometimes hear from people who have never seen him play*. Power forwards in the West are a must- It’s no accident that Pau Gasol, Tim Duncan and all the other great power forwards in the West can turn teams around overnight. By January, he will be pushing to start for the Blazers.


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> It blows me away how certain players can just come out of nowhere. Like Roy or Wade or Tyrus Thomas. Nobody was talking about Wade before taking his team to the Final Four. 4 years ago if you would have told us Wade would be one of the top 10 players in the NBA, we would have laughed. With all the scouting some guys still slip through the cracks. It would be interesting if one of you internet savvy people could go back and look at like a top 50 list for example. Maybe from last year,and see where Roy was ranked.


youre right i remember watching the draft wade was in , and it was rumored they were gonna take tj ford at 4 because they needed a point guard . I guess scouts do know alot of things .


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Schilly said:


> According to Mike Rice




Wow, I know it's the "wild" one, but that's pretty exciting to read. He either thinks Aldridge has the goods, or the team will already be mathmaticaly eliminated from the playoffs in January.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

I have seen Aldridge play in college and he was sporadic at best. You didn't know what you were going to get from him every night. For instance, his horrible showing against LSU in the tourney. In summer league he wasn't putting up spectacular numbers either, so I'm not so sure why Rice thinks that he's ready to contribute right away.

Could it be some more Blazers.com fluff?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> I have seen Aldridge play in college and he was sporadic at best. You didn't know what you were going to get from him every night. For instance, his horrible showing against LSU in the tourney. In summer league he wasn't putting up spectacular numbers either, so I'm not so sure why Rice thinks that he's ready to contribute right away.
> 
> Could it be some more Blazers.com fluff?




I saw him play in college as well, and what I saw was very different than what you saw. I saw a player who was not his teams focus yet still managed to put up enough numbers to merit being the considered the top big man in this draft by many. 

Also, in the summer league he was not his teams focus until the last game...(Nate said that) and in that game he put up 19 and 9 with 4-6 blocks depending on who you talk to. That's pretty good I'd say. He also shot very well from the field in summer league.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> I have seen Aldridge play in college and he was sporadic at best. You didn't know what you were going to get from him every night. For instance, his horrible showing against LSU in the tourney...


granted he missed his wide open looks in that game, but dude did manage 2 stls, 5 blocks, and 10 boards as well. Hardly horrible. 

Here's his game by game stats... http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/gamelog?playerId=22514



> In summer league he wasn't putting up spectacular numbers either, so I'm not so sure why Rice thinks that he's ready to contribute right away.
> 
> Could it be some more Blazers.com fluff?


Possibly... or it could just be more bitterness from you over them passing on your special someone.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

You guys are right.

Every opinion I have is in some way based around my liking for Adam Morrison.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> You guys are right.
> 
> Every opinion I have is in some way based around my liking for Adam Morrison.


How can you be so unbelievably obsessed with another human being that is not you wife or girlfriend? Like my dad used to used to say, "Don't put all your eggs in 1 basket." One question. Before the long-haired homeless porno lookin mustache havin' white boy came along, what was your incentive to even get out of bed? One more question....if Morrison's career goes the route of say......Casey Jacobson..........who will you become completely enthralled with?


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

I like Aldridge but I'm not sure he will be the best player taken by the Blazers in the draft this year. I guess we all will see in time however.

gatorpops


----------



## ThePrideOfClyde (Mar 28, 2006)

zagsfan20 said:


> You guys are right.
> 
> Every opinion I have is in some way based around my liking for Adam Morrison.


Yes, we know. We didn't need you to tell us.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

HispanicCausinPanic said:


> How can you be so unbelievably obsessed with another human being that is not you wife or girlfriend? Like my dad used to used to say, "Don't put all your eggs in 1 basket." One question. Before the long-haired homeless porno lookin mustache havin' white boy came along, what was your incentive to even get out of bed? One more question....if Morrison's career goes the route of say......Casey Jacobson..........who will you become completely enthralled with?


I'm not sure what your trying to get at...What was my incentive to get out of bed? Is that some lame attempt to make me look bad?

I'm not 'obsessed' with Morrison. I like him a lot and think we should have drafted him over the project center with creaky knees, but I'm not 'obsessed' with him.

I'm simply a very big fan of his, and of Gonzaga basketball in general.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

Roy will definitly make an immediate impact, much more than Aldridge, who probably won't play much during the first quarter of the season. The Blazers are just going to let him completly heal.

He'll not only have to compete with Jamal and Raef for backup minutes at 4/5, but also Darius and Outlaw, who may get minutes at backup PF.

We can have a hardnose half court starting lineup with
Jack
Roy
Webster
Randolph
Pryzbilla


Then change it up with a fast paced team
Rodriguez
Dixon
Miles
Outlaw
Maglorie

Opponants have admitted in the past, that Portland was easier to play because they had so many identical players.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

somehow I doubt that Darius will be playing many minutes in Portland, let alone the NBA this year. his knee is obviously shot, as if he's really "worked out" all summer (or at least half) and he's still having issues 10 months after the surgery, it seems to suggest one of two things.

1. his knee (maybe both?) is much worse off than we know
2. he didn't do a damn thing about rehabbing, and basically just got stoned all summer (and his knee's are shot).


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

btw, zags, where do you hear that LaMarcus's knees are "creaky"? I've heard that from no one, outside of you.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> I like Aldridge but I'm not sure he will be the best player taken by the Blazers in the draft this year. I guess we all will see in time however.
> 
> gatorpops


Which would surprise few.

Bigs are almost always sought after in the draft - by most of the GMs. In this draft, Aldridge was picked where he was valued in the draft by the GMs in question - not just Portland.

GMs take more chances with 7 footers, tend to have more roster need for 7 footers, and will win bigger if they hit a home run with a 7 footer than with a small.

No one will be surprised if Roy ends up the better player than Aldridge. It happens many drafts that one or more smalls ends up much better than bigs taken before them.

GMs know this and still won't change their bias toward drafted bigs. Classic supply and demand.


----------



## HispanicCausinPanic (Jul 2, 2005)

Hap said:


> btw, zags, where do you hear that LaMarcus's knees are "creaky"? I've heard that from no one, outside of you.


I'm sure Adam Morrison told him.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

As for Mike Rice stating that LaMarcus "wants to be a star", of course he does. Wouldn't you think that 99.3% of the NBA players "want to be the star" . As for being a project, Mike Rice is saying one thing, many other experts are stating another..and that is that he is not ready to be a big contributor this season.

I haven't heard anything about his knees, but I have heard that he can bench 185 a total of 6 times, which is about 10 times less than me. I think it is a concern. Yes, he can get stronger, but it takes time to put meat on a skinny frame.

Back to Roy..at what point does everyone think he will be starting for this team?


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> I haven't heard anything about his knees, but I have heard that he can bench 185 a total of 6 times, which is about 10 times less than me. I think it is a concern. Yes, he can get stronger, but it takes time to put meat on a skinny frame.


Are your arms anywhere NEAR as long as Aldridge's? I know this may come as a shock to you but long arms = difficult to bench press big numbers. There's been plenty of great centers in the NBA that wernt all that strong and probably couldnt bench press all that well. Kareem, Walton, Sampson, Parrish, so on and so forth.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Oil Can said:


> As for Mike Rice stating that LaMarcus "wants to be a star", of course he does. Wouldn't you think that 99.3% of the NBA players "want to be the star" . As for being a project, Mike Rice is saying one thing, many other experts are stating another..and that is that he is not ready to be a big contributor this season.
> 
> I haven't heard anything about his knees, but I have heard that he can bench 185 a total of 6 times, which is about 10 times less than me. I think it is a concern. Yes, he can get stronger, but it takes time to put meat on a skinny frame.
> 
> Back to Roy..at what point does everyone think he will be starting for this team?



it better be from day one as far as roy is concerned.

As for Aldridge's bench press numbers....I was told by someone I trust that before his surgery he was already benching 20lbs more than he did in pre draft workouts. He is also leg lifting almost 50lbs more than he did since being weight trained for the FIRST TIME in his career.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Spoolie Gee said:


> Are your arms anywhere NEAR as long as Aldridge's? I know this may come as a shock to you but long arms = difficult to bench press big numbers. There's been plenty of great centers in the NBA that wernt all that strong and probably couldnt bench press all that well. Kareem, Walton, Sampson, Parrish, so on and so forth.



Replace Sampson with Hakeem if you're talking about "great" centers.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Replace Sampson with Hakeem if you're talking about "great" centers.


Sampson was great before his injuries.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> it better be from day one as far as roy is concerned.
> 
> As for Aldridge's bench press numbers....I was told by someone I trust that before his surgery he was already benching 20lbs more than he did in pre draft workouts. He is also leg lifting almost 50lbs more than he did since being weight trained for the FIRST TIME in his career.


Ive heard that they fully expect him to be 260+ by the end of the season, and about 250ish by the start of this season. It's amazing what working out with someone who knows how to work out, will do for your body.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> btw, zags, where do you hear that LaMarcus's knees are "creaky"? I've heard that from no one, outside of you.


He had a significant knee surgery in college and had a bad knee throughout college.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> He had a significant knee surgery in college and had a bad knee throughout college.


um..that was his hip junior.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

That would be his knee, senior.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> That would be his knee, senior.


linkage?

i asked someone who actually works with the team (in the fitness area) and he had no memory of knee's being an issue (at least, anymore than they are for anyone else).


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Hap said:


> linkage?
> 
> i asked someone who actually works with the team (in the fitness area) and he had no memory of knee's being an issue (at least, anymore than they are for anyone else).



Yup.

Found this on his hip...

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2005/10/21/Sports/Aldridge.Impressing.Team.With.Return.From.Hip.Injury-1029028.shtml?norewrite200610091648&sourcedomain=www.dailytexanonline.com

Found nothing about his knees. All that comes up is stories about LA with mention of Miles bad knee on the page somewhere.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

In high school he developed a reputation for being soft and not showing enough heart. Scouts still have some question marks about his toughness inside. He is vastly improved in that area, but still struggles against big and strong players on the NCAA level ... Not a physically imposing player inside, plays more a finesse game. Needs to get nastier ... Should still add an additional 10-15 pounds ... Not an out of this world leaper, but solid ... Not an extremely emotional player, which is both a positive and a negative ... Passing and ball handling are decent but can improve ...* Also has been injury prone (missed half of his freshman year after a hip injury that required surgery)* ... Must develop a killer instinct, more intensity ... Free throw shooting is just average ...


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

My goodness he has long arms. He looks like somebody put Aldridge's head and jersey on Sheed's body (in that photo on that link). I'll take Aldridge's head on Sheed's body any day. :biggrin: 

The way he's been hitting the weight room, and considering his superior mental approach to pretty much everything us fans care about, combined with his skill set, I'd say Aldridge has a chance to be better than Sheed.

I'll drink to that.

:cheers:


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

nevermind, I guess it was his hip. I remember watching games last year and the announcers were talking about his knee.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> nevermind, I guess it was his hip. I remember watching games last year and the announcers were talking about his knee.



ahem...yeah. If diabetes isn't a problem then this isn't either. 

check and


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mate.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Hap said:


> ahem...yeah. If diabetes isn't a problem then this isn't either.
> 
> check and


but, I think not showing up for big games could be an even bigger problem.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> but, I think not showing up for big games could be an even bigger problem.



I dont think anyone expects him to ever be the guy that carries this team. Jack, Webster and Roy _should _fill that role in the future. He just needs to come in, play some D and grab some boards.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

Spoolie Gee said:


> I dont think anyone expects him to ever be the guy that carries this team. Jack, Webster and Roy _should _fill that role in the future. He just needs to come in, play some D and grab some boards.


I like your post. If Alridge truly does end up being a solid P/F-C, and Jack, Roy and Webster are the leaders... 
I like the possibilities and see Portlander's re-falling for the Blazers en masse. 

Still, the # 2 pick for a # 4 banana?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


> but, I think not showing up for big games could be an even bigger problem.




Your bias is amusing.


Adam Morrison scored 14 points in a tourney game against Indiana. That's 14 points below his average, yet you say Aldridge doesn't show up in big games. Adam Morrison scored 24 points in their loss to UCLA in the next game. That's 4 points below his average. 

LaMarcus Aldridge averaged less than 1 point less than his season average during the tourney. Adam Morrison averaged 4 points less than his season average during the tourney....Again, who didn't show up? 

Adam Morrison shot a lower % from the field and from 3pt land in the tourney, had less rebounds per game as well. Where as LaMarcus Aldridge increased his rebounding and blacked shots during the tourney.

Ibring these up because it it what their teams needed from them.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Oil Can said:


> I like your post. If Alridge truly does end up being a solid P/F-C, and Jack, Roy and Webster are the leaders...
> I like the possibilities and see Portlander's re-falling for the Blazers en masse.
> 
> Still, the # 2 pick for a # 4 banana?


Aldridge's skill set and length conjure up images of a younger Rasheed Wallace. Who wouldn't want Sheed's talent in a less combustible package?

I see Aldridge as being one of the big three within 3 years: Webster/Roy/Aldridge, with Jack playing a supporting role.


----------



## Public Defender (May 5, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> but, I think not showing up for big games could be an even bigger problem.


I can give you a few examples of when Aldridge _did_ show up for big games. 

1.) He chipped in 19 points and five rebounds in a tight win over Villanova (who was ranked #5 at the time). 

2.) He put up 22 and 12 in a losing effort at Oklahoma - when it seemed like no one else on the team showed up. 

3.) Two days before the game against LSU, Aldridge scored 26 points and nabbed 13 boards in a three-point win against West Virginia. 

Looking over his numbers from sophomore year, I don't think Aldridge's ability to "show up" for big games will be a concern. But I'd like to see a bit more consistency than I saw in him at Texas.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Your bias is amusing.
> 
> 
> Adam Morrison scored 14 points in a tourney game against Indiana. That's 14 points below his average, yet you say Aldridge doesn't show up in big games. Adam Morrison scored 24 points in their loss to UCLA in the next game. That's 4 points below his average.
> ...



The Indiana game was one game. Against UCLA, he was playing against the best defense in the nation and a team that was double and triple teaming him throughout the game.

1 less point when your averaging only 15 a game is a lot different than 4 less than when your averaging 28 points a game. Don't ya think there's a little difference there?

You would think that Morrison's shooting #'s would go down slightly against the better teams that are in the tourney, and when your shooting at such an amazing clip going in there destined to go down a little.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> 1 less point when your averaging only 15 a game is a lot different than 4 less than when your averaging 28 points a game. Don't ya think there's a little difference there?


Yes. Going from 15 to 14 is a 7% decrease; going from 28 to 24 is a 14% decrease. 

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

barfo said:


> Yes. Going from 15 to 14 is a 7% decrease; going from 28 to 24 is a 14% decrease.
> 
> barfo


Sample size.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Sample size.


Well, size matters. But Aldridge is bigger.

But to the point, if the sample size is inadequate, then the statistics aren't meaningful. But you were the one who said there was a 'big difference' between the two, suggesting that you thought the statistics were in fact valid. So I'm not clear what you mean by the two word quote above.

barfo


----------



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

zagsfan20 said:


> The Indiana game was one game.


And... the LSU game was also "one game". And because Aldridge didn't knock down his shots in that "one game" you want to label him as someone who doesn't show up for big games. This, after falsely stating he has "creaky knees" when he's never suffered a knee injury. We all know you're still upset the Blazers didn't get Morrison, but you're letting your infatuation get in the way of the facts.

Here's another fact... If not for the HUGE game (26pts. 13 rebs. 4 blks.) Aldridge had against West Virginia, there would not have been a Texas/LSU game. And while his shot may have been off against LSU, he managed to contribute in other ways (10 rebs. 5 blks.).

Aldridge was inconsistant at times, but a lot of that was due to playing with a couple guards who seemed to have dominating the ball as their #1 priority.

There is no doubt in my mind that Morrison is a better scorer than Aldridge. However, Aldridge is a more complete player. Basketball is played at both ends of the court. Morrsion excels at one end and is a liability at the other. Aldridge is above average at both ends and will continue to improve as he bulks up and grows into his lanky frame. Also, while Morrison scored in greater volume in college, Aldridge is equally efficient at scoring. He just took far fewer shots (mostly because his guards wouldn't pass him the ball). As a sophomore, Morrison in spite of taking (and making) a lot more three pointers, averaged 1.30 points/shot. As a sophomore, Aldridge averaged 1.44 pps. It wasn't until his big junior year that Morrison was able to exceed (slightly - 1.50 pps) Aldridge's sophomore pps average.

Morrison is a good fit in Charlotte. He'll score and they'll be happy with him. Aldridge will never score as much as Morrison, but I expect him to eventually average 16 - 18 ppg, 9 - 10 rpg and 2.0 - 2.5 bpg. He's a year younger than Morrison, and big men usually develop slower. Others have compared his build to Sheed. If he does indeed achieve those numbers, he'll score about as much as Sheed, but be a better rebounder and better shot blocker - and not be nearly as prone to ejections and suspensions that hurt his team. In other words, Sheed talent without the Sheed baggage.

I'm happy the Blazers were able to land a talented young big man in the draft. I would have also been happy if they would have gotten Morrison, but in the end I believe both players are good fits with their respective teams and hope both have successful careers. No need to put down one to prop up the other. Their ultimate worth will be determined by their own successes, not the other's failures.

BNM


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I think your case has been closed zags. Repeatedly.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

i am shocked he hasnt left the blazers for the bobcats


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

We will certainly know within the next 2-4 years if LaMarcus Alridge was a worthy # 2 pick in the NBA Draft. It seems from most accounts that he will be given a pass this year, in terms of performance....ala Darko. 

I share everyones hope that he will be a supreme NBA talent, but I don't have the level of optamism.

Seems like a nice kid, and I hope he bulks up, dominates, and sheds the finesse tag he has been saddled with by some. Portland needs good guys that can play and my hope is he fits the bill.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

I don't mind if he plays a finesse game on O... a big with a sweet stroke is a great asset for an offensive attack. For me, whether he turns out to be good value at #2 hinges more on whether he's able to effectively slide between multiple positions on the defensive end. I love that he brings the club another shotblocker. I think a big key to the Detroit teams success the last few years has been having 3 guys in the starting lineup who can alter shots. I see Darius, LaMarcus, and Joel teaming nicely.

STOMP


----------



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

When I tell people I think LaMarcus Aldridge is a great fit in Portland, many of them look at me like I'm nuts. Afterall, our best, and highest paid, player is a power forward. So, why did we draft Aldridge? He's a great complement to our current front line players. He can play both the 4 and the 5 (depending on the match-ups and the situation). His high post face-the-basket offensive game won't clash with Zach, Joel or Mags (or eventually Greg Oden - oh please, oh please, oh please). He can spread the court and draw his defender away from the basket to allow Zach, Joel or Mags to operate down on the blocks. On defense, a great shot blocker can help erase Zach's defensive mistakes. And, as STOMP mentioned, Joel at the 5 and LA at the 4 make an impressive shot blocking duo.

He's been compared to Sheed without the baggage. Zach was at his best when playing alongside Sheed. Hopefully, he can go back to banging down on the blocks and grabbing offensive rebounds when paired with LA. LaMarcus and Zach have such totally different styles that I don't see them clashing the way Zach and SAR did. Quite the opposite, IMHO. The fact that Aldridge is good at both ends of the court and versatile enough to play two positions are additional benefits (again, a lot like Sheed without the distractions).

BNM


----------

