Saying LaMarcus Aldridge isn't a Go To player is pretty short sighted. The guy was the Blazers "Go TO Player" for a number of years and I have been watching the Spurs this year. They pretty much use him as a "Go To Player" also. They just do it in moderation but when they come out and run their very first play of the game it is usually through LMA. When they need a bucket to get things settled down they run a play to Aldridge. Just because he left here doesn't make him any less viable. The only thing that supports an argument that he is not a "Go to Player" is simply that he is on a roster now that has other contributors.
Last summer when Olshey was adding players, I posted, we still need a scoring small forward, to counterbalance Lillard. But Olshey stopped signing, so we all surmised that he was tanking this year. We knew we didn't have enough scorers.
hopefully that's just meaning he was back stocking the roster so that after this offseason we have a roster bolstered with real and showing talent
Sometimes I question the amount of research people put into their posts. LMA has his lowest usage rating since the 2010 season. The following 4 seasons as our 'go to player' we never seriously contended, as his usage rating skyrocketed. Additonlly, he himself has said that he defers to Kawhi Leonard and that is something that he refused to do whIle he was here. He wanted it to be his team. Thus; yes, he was the go to player here, but he isn't the go to player on the spurs - reducing his usage rate (despite them.frequently sitting numerous starters ..they've still reduced his role slightly) and it's doing wonders for them. He is a self admitted second fiddle and that stats back it up in the record of the team he plays for. Edit - here is a link of him saying he isn't the guy any more.... http://mweb.cbssports.com/nba/eye-o...-not-being-the-guy-says-spurs-are-kawhis-team
Sometimes i question the amount of common sense people put into their posts. I don't have to research a damn thing. I watch the games. LMA is an impact player and yes the Spurs "GO TO" him quite a bit. Yes he does defer to Leonard as he also does Parker and Duncan, but as i said that has a whole lot to do with the people around him. Try watching the next game and see who gets the first touch? 9 times out of 10 it is LaMarcus Aldridge. It's called the Eye test and people who rely on what they actually see have a tendency to be a little more accurate in my book.
Getting the first touch does not designate a go-to player. Generally it's the guy who gets the LAST touch, or who you "go to" in the 4th quarter. The only time LMA was a go-to player we were a lottery team. The moment we drafted Lillard it was always a little tenuous as to who our go-to player was - we certainly fed LMA (and his ego), but ever since Lillard's first season it was apparent that he was a better closer, or go-to player.
But if he was our go to and then Dame too kit over, it doesnt mean he is no longer "A" go to player. He is def a go to player. Maybe not in every scenario, but he was, is and will be a go to player.
Here's a link to a Forbes article about the Go-To-Person and how it relates to sports and the workplace. It may or may not help you define a Go-To-Player.
I can assure you I've watched a great deal of basketball this year of all teams, scouting them. So now an 'impact' player and a go-player are the same thing? Not true. When the game is on the line, who did the Spurs 'go to'? Kawhi Leonard, because he is the go to guy - as their team readily admits, Mr. Eye Test. LMA ain't a G2G and it's ok. Not everyone has that skillset. Very few post players due. They can't dribble to get their own shot and rely on others to get them the ball in their spots. What's the saying - you can't shove a square peg in a round hole? That's what you do with LMA as your go to guy. That's why we never won (well, among many other things.)
If that is the true sense of the word then there are only about 10-15 go to guys in the league and not even enough for one for every team. I think the argument KJ and I are making, is each team has a go to guy. Whether he is a TRUE NBA go to go or not is irrelevant because said team only has X players and none of them are NBA go to guys. But the team still has a go to guy. Every team does. Whether they fit the true sense of the definition or not. Whether we were trying to put a square peg into a round hole or not, he was still our go to player. You may be right about his situation with the Spurs now, but yes. LMA was our go to player. There are many players in the league that don't fit this NBA "go to" definition, but are still their respective team's "go to" player.
You seem to forget something....You are talking about the San Antonio Spurs. The Spurs have a second unit that would make the playoffs. Did you watch the game last night? I'm betting not. In the last 6 mins of the game LMA had 6 points 3 rebounds and a blocked shot. He got 4 of his points at the free throw line because the Spurs were running their offense through him and he drew the foul. He also commanded the double over and over again all night which he passed out of and created good shots for the offense. This happened again and again just like he used to do when he played here. If you do not double Aldridge he will burn you. Simple as that! Now LMA got a double with 16 and 10 with a couple blocks and assists. Led the team in rebounding but of course you understand the entire Spurs team rebounds so that does not happen all the time. Leonard did if fact lead the team in scoring with 32 and was a huge factor in this and every game they play. Blocks, steals, rebounds, assists. Leonard is a great player no question. No body is taking anything away from him. The biggest point is so is Diaw/Duncan/ Parker/West/Green/Ginobili as well as LaMarcus Aldridge. Last night at the end of the game when the Spurs were behind they went to LaMarcus Aldridge over and over again. I don't care what you think a "Go To Guy" or an "Impact Guy" is. Last night when the game was on the line Greg Popovich went to LaMarcus Aldridge. Sorry but in this instance i'm taking exactly what i see and calling it Truth!
Exactly! Who is the Blazers "Go To Guy"? Lillard? CJ? would those players be the "Go To Guy" on the Thunder? Spurs? Warriors? Does that make then Not a "Go To Guy" because they would not be the GO TO GUY on the Cavaliers? This dude is whack thinking Aldridge is anything less? I understand People don't like the decision he made but in the end Aldridge will not only get a championship or two but my bet is he will eventually end up in the HOF. Perennial All-Star and his numbers will command it. You add Championships and his probability rating will go up further. Right now he sits at 24 among active players and that is without a championship. Not to mention he sat his first 7 years here watching player after player get injured or quit on him. http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html
I think I mis-titled this thread. I don't necessarily think Portland needs a go-to player, but they need someone who is at least as good as Lillard and McCollum. Who can score as well as them and hopefully play better defense.
You did just fine. Most everyone knows exactly what you meant. And whats more you are absolutely correct. This team does need another "Go To" or "Impact" player. Whatever you want to call it. This summer should tell us a lot about where they will be going.
OK, OK. I think what I am really saying (and I think this is what Olshey is thinking also) is that we cannot just add more pieces, even starting material pieces. Golden State can do that, build around Curry and Thompson. But Lillard and McCollum are not as good as Curry and Thompson, especially on defense. We actually need to add someone better than either of those. Olshey did it once with Chris Paul and is probably hoping to do it again. Considering that, I would have my doubts about him adding a guy like Horford, because he is not asset that could be traded to a team willing to rebuild and he is not a great enough player to make us a title contender. The other question is, will there ever again be a situation where a dominant player like CP gets traded? I really have my doubts. And I really have my doubts about us having a good enough talent nucleus to be able to sign a free agent like Durant. Other than CP, all the dominant players in the league have been drafted, haven't they? I'm talking about in the last ten years. Is there someone I am missing? (I didn't really start this post being pessimistic, but I think I have talked myself into it.)
I agree. Lillard is a good 3rd fiddle on a championship team, but we need to add 2 better players than him. Where have I heard this before?
Lamarcus is a go to player....when asked where he'd sign he said he was going to San Antonio...technically we could call him a went to player I guess
