Serious Lamarcus Question Confusion

Quite right. I do have one worry with LMA, he's really not much of a passer. Will he be able to effectively run a high-low with Oden (or whomever?) without that ability being even average? I guess we'll see.

 

Actually, I partially disagree with you. I think Aldridge is actually a pretty deft passer for a big man. He just struggles with passing out of double-teams. That's one big reason why he can't be a "number one option." If you put Roy and Oden out there with him, he's not going to be drawing any double-teams. I think in those cases, he's pretty good at finding cutters and open perimeter shooters.

 

We have a big man coach; he's battling for his life.

 

Try reading the post again. It's about positioning. Not catching the ball or turnovers.

 

And again, the reason he has trouble passing out of a double team is because of the spacing and where he catches the ball. Throwing passes is hard when players are all bunched up together. When you catch the ball 2 to 3 feet from your perimeter player, now you have 4 guys all packed in a short distance from each other. This isn't rocket science folks.

 

Aldridge is decent at kick out passing, but not at high post passing like Camby.

 

So our big men have lost 2 years of coaching due to loyalty to Mo. Was it worth it?

The usual answer here is to praise our other assistants. I answered that. "Look at Aldridge's deficiencies for a start. Look at how Oden has no offensive moves."

 

I love Luke and man am I ever pulling for him, but this team has got to be able to get at least an interim replacement in the meantime and apparently that hasn't happened.

 

And you don't blame Aldridge for getting that shitty position in the first place? Come on.

 

Why? Because Aldridge could be so much more. He has a huge amount of talent, and if he applied around the basket instead of out on the perimeter, he could be a deadly inside force for the Blazers. Imagine what kind of team we could have if Aldridge played only in the paint, and made people foul him! He'd go to the line all day long, and eventually foul out the other team's big men. And even when he missed his shot, he'd have a much better chance of grabbing the rebound. With his height and his long extension, he'd be almost impossible to stop around the hoop.

Bud, sadly, he'd rather hang out on the perimeter and loft up fade-away jump shots. That's why he's just another Rasheed Wallace, another player who wasted a lot of his talent.

 

You always assume players have the talents you want them to have and are just being assholes who don't want to use those talents. I find that a little silly. The idea that Aldridge has awesome low-post talents but just doesn't care enough (or is too frightened) to use those skills/talents is as valid, IMO, as the belief that Rasheed Wallace was just as talented as Kevin Garnett and Tim Duncan but didn't care enough to be as good as them. He wasn't as talented as Duncan or Garnett. Aldridge likely doesn't have great low post skills/talent.

You're trying to turn your own frustrations with lack of talent into something you can feel justified about attacking. You can't attack someone for a lack of talent, since no one can control personal talent level, but it's easy to attack someone for lack of effort. So assume they're incredibly talented and totally lacking in effort. Standard rhetorical trick.

 

I think the biggest issue with LMA's public perception is that presents such laid back vibe and he's not exactly what I would call a 'high motor' player. However, I agree with you that his issue is more to do with lack of skill/talent/fundamentals and not a lack of heart, but I can also see why people would call him out for being soft or otherwise lacking desire because of the way he carries himself on the court.

 

His on-court carriage reminds me a lot of Tim Duncan, actually. What doesn't remind me of Duncan, about Aldridge, is that Duncan has amazing post moves and is a great passer out of the low-post. I guess if Duncan didn't have those skills, but was otherwise the same guy, people would accuse him of being soft or lacking heart also.

I guess if you're a big man without a low-post game, you'd better have a fiery demeanor to prove you care?

 

Pretty much. Whether that's fair or not.

 

Sure, I understand that that's the reality with some. I was just pointing out that it isn't valid. At least, IMO.

 

The big difference, as I see it, is Duncan stays into the game when he's not in the game. LMA is often seen laughing and having a good time on the bench, not paying much attention to what's going on out on the floor. That would be fine if he refocused when it comes time to re-enter the game, but it often seems to coincide with those flat spots he routinely suffers. In any sport, the difference between the good athletes and the best athletes usually is not measurable by any significant talent or technique differences. It just comes down to focus.

 

Tim Duncan was once kicked out of a game for laughing on the bench.

Minstrel ... it's a fact!!

[video=youtube;Lu1Wz5JQEz8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu1Wz5JQEz8[/video]

 

This, and I'll add that the Blazers didn't hold these fantasies about LA becoming a beast underneath, since they drafted Greg Oden over Kevin Durant to be a beast underneath the basket.

 

I've often seen Duncan laughing on the bench, not just the incident BGrantFan video referenced. There are three indelible images I have of Duncan's "manner": stoic indifference, laughing with teammates on the bench, and incredulous looks at the referee.

It may well be that Duncan is more focused than Aldridge. Amazing focus is a hallmark of the greatest performers and, IMO, a part of talent. But I don't think their relative manners show that focus.