Treaty, so you're backing up your idea with two games? That does not refute my position that LA is a Jamal Crawford type.
Quote Originally Posted by Treaty_of_Batum View Post Thanks to LaMarcus Aldridge and Damian Lillard, the Portland Trail Blazers are now a team of choice for NBA superstars looking to switch locales. Bwahahahaha
I don't know what you mean by Jamal Crawford type . . does JC average a double double in the regular season, make the all star team and then score 89 points in two games in the playoffs leading the team to the second round? If so I want more more Jamal Crawford types.
I'm just not comfortable having LA eat up 20+ million in cap space as he nears 30. He's either the best of second-best PF in the game, and he was simply amazing in Games 1 & 2 vs. Houston but will he ever be the dominant force on the block that we need? He takes too many jump shots, a lot of them extremely contested and really doesn't shoot the ball efficiently. Also, does he have room to improve? I'm not super stoked about dealing him for the No. 1 pick this year (the Davis draft would be a whole different discussion), as there's not a clear-cut franchise-changing player available, but at what point do you sell high? And then there's the chance LA could just get up and leave after next year. We've got a lot of decisions to be made roster wise as so many contracts are up for grabs and is the current team good enough to win it all? Yes, we finally made it out of the First Round. That's fantastic. But don't get it twisted, it's not the end game. Lets not end up like the Phoenix Suns of the early 90's or Utah Jazz a few years ago where the peak was a WCF appearance. It's about championships!
I like Aldridge a lot better if he's averaging 35min a game and not 38 Totally different player when he's rested.
My only concern about LA: Did he get satisfied and quit in the playoffs? Was it all just about getting out of the first round for him? If he did, he isn't someone I want to commit long term too at least not as the number one option.
Pretty much, but isn't the big knock on Wiggins that he doesn't have the killer instinct guys like the rapist have?
Too lazy to read the whole thread. So when are we trading LaMarcus to Cleveland for their number 1? Draft night?
What is weird to me for a guy that averaged a double double on the season to only put up 21 double doubles seems strange and a lack on consistency.
What it means is that he was probably consistent enough over the course of the season to at least pull down 8 or 9 rebounds a night as his production floor ... in other words he was consistent this year whereas he had plenty of 3, 4 and 5 rebounds per game in years past. Granted this is just a guess, I'm far too lazy to go look this stuff up at basketball-reference.com, but you're more than welcome.
I got that from an article written in mid January. When the Blazers got off to such a fast start, LA was a big part of it. as the season went on the Blazers tailed off along with Aldridge . . .but he did finish the year with 40 double doubles, 10th in the league. Love, Drummonds and Cousins finished 1-3 with Love blowing away the others with 65. Edit: LA did finish tied for 3rd in the post season for double doubles with 8 http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/player/_/stat/double-doubles/sort/doubleDouble
A very historical first two games. However... In the next four games of the Rockets series and the 5 games of the Spurs series he shot a very underwhelming, non-historical .402 from the field. So two great games and 9 very sub-par games if the total picture is considered. That is to take nothing away from what he did but also to recognize he was one of the least efficient players on the floor after that.
I can't believe how much some people in this forum undervalue LaMarcus Aldridge. First yes, his performance in Games 1 and 2 were of historical greatness. Think about that again before you dismiss it. Look at the VERY select list of people who have, in the entire history of the NBA, put up similar performances. That he is capable of such performances, in consecutive playoff games, makes him an elite player capable of carrying his team to victory in the post season. There aren't a lot of guys out there that can do that. We're lucky, we have one of those guys and not only CAN he do it, he DID it. Of course his production went down after those first two games. His dominance in Games 1 and 2 forced Houston to completely change their game plan to try to slow him down. They were forced to replace Terence Jones and start Omar Asik in his place. In a very high scoring series, this forced Houston to play 4 on 5 on offense for the final four games of the series. Think about that. How many players are there in this league that will force an opponent to completely alter their game plan to try to stop them? Not a lot. We're lucky, we have one of them. And, Houston's focus on stopping Aldridge also created easy scoring opportunities for his teammates. In addition to starting Asik in place of Jones, Houston started doubling Aldridge more, which led to more open looks for Batum, Matthews and Lillard. All of those guys saw their scoring go up, especially Batum and Matthews as Houston focused more on stopping Aldridge. And, when Asik was in foul trouble and they were forced to play Terence Jones, McHale didn't want him anywhere near Aldridge. He was forced to put Dwight Howard on Aldridge, which drew Howard out of the paint and left Houston without anyone protecting the paint. This allowed Lillard to drive the lane without resistance and also created many easy baskets for Robin Lopez. In spite of Houston completely changing their game plan to try to stop Aldridge, they failed. Sure, his scoring was no longer of historical greatness, but one thing didn't change. In every game the Blazer won in the Houston series, LaMarcus was the team's leading scorer. That's right, not only would we have not won Games 1 and 2 without Aldridge, we also would not have won Game 4 (29 points, 10 rebounds) and Game 6 (30 points, 13 rebounds). It is obvious to anyone, that we would not have won that series without Aldridge. In fact, I honestly believe if you replace Aldridge with any other power forward in the worold, Houston sweeps the Blazers in that series. In the closest playoff series I can remember in my long lifetime of following the NBA, Aldridge completely dominated his opponents. For the entire six game series, Houston outscored the Blazers by 2 points (672-670), but Aldridge outscored his counterparts by 127 points (179-52). Think about the significance of that for a second. Without the Aldridge advantage, the rest of Houston's roster outscored the rest of our roster by 129 points - that's a difference of over 21 points per game. Again, I can't think of another power forward that would have dominated the Rockets the way Aldridge did. And, without that dominance, the Blazers get swept. We're very lucky to have a player that can dominate a playoff series like that. There aren't many guys out that that can do that, and we have one that many posters want to piss away on an unproven draft pick that would set this team back at least 4 years, likely more as other players get tired of losing and leave for greener pastures. Yeah, it was only one series, but it was the first playoff series the Blazers have won in 14 years. I know others here disagree, but I'd like a little more of that winning before we immediately go back to losing. If we trade Aldridge for a draft pick and sign any other free agent to take his place, we will not make the playoffs in the West next year. The West is very competitive and other teams are looking to get better, not worse. I absolutely abhor this lose now attitude. Losing now doesn't guarantee you'll ever get better, all it guarantees is you'll lose more in the immediate future. I'm personally tired of losing and being in the lottery. I'm thrilled to death that we won 54 games (only 4 teams won more) and advanced to the second round. Aldridge is only 29 and in his prime. Lilliard, Batum and Matthews are either in their primes or will be soon. The majority of our bench is young with room for improvement (or replacement). Rather than blow up the best team we've had in 14 years, why not try to let these guys continue to grow together and add some key bench pieces? Blowing things up and starting over sounds good in theory, but rarely works in practice. BNM
