Seems to me that saying "He's not that good" is not the same as saying, "He'll never be that good." At the time, I read Nik's comments as saying that LA not playing like a franchise player was because of an undeveloped skill set rather than a mental block. It's a big leap for you to interpret "lacking" as "incapable".
good grief. With this and the doesn't command double teams comment I guess when you write something apparently you get to invent your own meanings of words and statements. Carry on... STOMP
you misquoted him... it's "he's just not that good" which sure as hell reads like a definitive judgement to me anyone else? STOMP
"just" as in "simply" as in "you people are assuming too much in terms of his current skill set." I believe you are misinterpreting that word. His subsequent posts support my assertion.
he simply is that good though... probably the best PF in the league this year when considering play on both ends of the floor I'll stand by that statement STOMP
Usually you and I are on the same wavelength, but we're off on this one. I've seen glimpses of LaMonster in most games since he's been in the NBA. He's always had the talent, but he doesn't seem to be a rock the boat kind of guy. The offense ran through Roy, and he was cool with being #2. He had a comparative advantage over other 4s on the pick and pop and we used that skill to open the middle for Brandon. That outside game is what earned him the nickname LaMarshmallow. Now that the offense runs through him, he's had free rein to show all his moves. It's true he's started to go to the hole more, but he's always had the leaping ability, quickness and length. There's a reason he was drafted #2.
Oh, no doubt that Nik was wrong in his statement. All I'm saying is that his statement was present-focused and not future-focused, which you've interpreted it to be.
I would love to see the 2006 draft order as of today; the only depressing thing would be that Roy would still be drafted after Foye... but both would be 2nd rounders.
and I'm saying his statement was very definitive and that you misquoted him leaving out the key word the word just connotates only or merely. As in this is what all we have to expect because this is what we've seen so far... he's established who he is. Of course different circumstances often produce different results. Being a supporting role player is a very different mentality to have then being the man who gets touches most every time down the court. How many hundreds of times have we seen guys step up when they've had more opportunity? This happens outside of sports all the time too I guess we'll have to agree to disagree STOMP
I really don't know why you are revisiting this. Even Aldridge himself said he was a poor mans Rasheed Wallace before the switch flipped in the Dallas game this year.
Because some posters were convinced that LMA was "just not that good" meaning he couldn't just flip a switch at some point... he was "just not that good". Clearly, those people were wrong and it is interesting to see them backpedal now.
