https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/seven-true-things-about-lamarcus-aldridge Good article, thought it deserved it's own thread.
That article captures Aldridge very well: scrupulously, unrelentingly boring, while at the same time stubborn and inflexible. He was very good at being who he wanted to be and doing what he wanted to do, but seemed to be not good at adjusting to what might make him more successful. The two sentences at the end of section 6 summed it up for me perfectly: But if he just did some things a little differently, he would have been a better player, playing for a better team. In signing with the Spurs, he has definitely figured out the second part, and probably made the first a lot less urgent.
I believe this is what was so maddening for most fans. If he played center, our team would have been something spectacular. Imagine Leonard and Aldridge able to stretch teams out and allow Dame to work his magic would be impossible to stop. We would have been able to land a slashing wing, able to get to the line for the money used on Lopez. It's weird man... Using my hindsight glasses, he could have been much greater than he already is, just accepting the role of the 5. And what will be even more maddening is watching him accept that role when he plays for the Spurs.
What a fantastically written article. It's not just accurate, it's TRUE in a lot of honest and uncomfortable ways. It's not a rah rah or fuck you piece. It's just the truth. It helped me get a little farther in understanding my feelings about last week. (By the way, the list of players being evolved out made me think that Leonard is a player in a position just coming into reality: the long bombing stretch 5)
Ah, yes. The LaMonster Era. Then he got his wish, and his coach decided he should be the next Dirk. Le Sigh.
I am so far up the Meyers Leonard hype train I think I might have a higher opinion of him than his mother.
Now that it's popular to hate Aldridge, are people starting to understand why I've hated him for so long?
Now that he's gone people are coming out of the woodwork to talk shit about his game...and when it's written up in a formal article people are eating it up and agreeing with it.
The article doesn't shit on his game, just says that he's unconventional. It doesn't make him any less of a player. He's still really really good, but he could have been better. It's not even close to the constant bullshit you used to spew about him.
While I may have taken my evaluation to the extreme in some cases (that's what message boards are for, right?), the gist of what I've been saying over the years is the same stuff everyone is talking about now. He's good, but not great...and really lousy at certain aspects of the game. And I'm not just talking about this article. Aaaand the article isn't just saying he's "unconventional" - it's saying that he's a stubborn fool and that's why he was never more than good.
I don't think there was a single poster in here that ever claimed he was a Batman. I mean that's what you are entertaining here right? If that's not then what is your definition of "good"? Like what other players do you think are considered "good, not great?"
I was hoping you'd be on vacation for the next three months because your I Told You So posts are pretty insufferable.
[chuckle] I've been pretty quiet about the "loss" of LMA. Forgive me a post or two now that my least favorite Blazer is no longer a Blazer? And unlike SO many around here I never dredge up old posts, or start new threads, for an "I Told You So" moment. But I couldn't help chiming in on an in-progress thread that falls in line with my POV.
