Aldridge as a SF?

[Reep]

First off . . . NO!

Okay, now that I've said that, some commenters over on the "You be the GM" poll suggested LMA was the perfect SF. He does have range, and could probably defend the bigger SFs in the league, but I just don't see it. I don't believe the Blazers played him at SF at all this season (wasn't he out when GO and Joel were in together?). 82games shows a big zero at SF for LMA.

I understand the concept of bringing in a banger at PF and then let LMA be himself, but he seems to get a bit tougher every year and I don't think we've seen anything yet.

Anyone want to make a case as to why LMA should be our SF?

 

[hasoos]

Well sometimes a case can be made for just putting your best 5 on the floor and seeing what happens. It all depends on durability and versatality. Do I think Lamarcus can play SF? Yes I do. Do I think he can guard SF? Yes, he can pretty much guard anybody from PG on up.

Possible problems? Putting ball on the floor to get to the hoop. 3 point shooting (he may be ok there).

Other problems? Who the hell plays PF then?

 

[SodaPopinski]

some commenters over on the "You be the GM" poll suggested LMA was the perfect SF.

I put online article or blog commenters slightly below online gamers and slightly above the I-still-haven't-left-my-house-over-swine-flu-fears people on the "in touch with reality" scale.

In other words, those people are morons.

-Pop

 

[Minstrel]

I don't mind putting Aldridge at the "3" in certain situations, if it meant getting another talented player on the floor. I think Aldridge can handle the position for short stretches...against the right small forwards, he'd be a bigger mismatch for them on offense than they would be for him.

I don't think there's any realistic way he could be a full-time small forward. Most swingmen will simply be too quick. They won't beat him every time, but they'll beat him a lot more than, say, a Batum. Besides, I want Batum to be on the floor more and more as he develops, so this idea seems completely counter-productive to me. IMO, the team has prototypical prospects/players at center, power forward and small forward in Oden, Aldridge and Batum. Why play any of them out of position on a full-time basis?

 

[EPIC FAIL GILDERHUS]

No way-he's starting to get that inside toughness that a PF needs. This would be a step backward for him.

 

[Reep]

If Oden developed (stayed on the court), you could argue the best talent was:

Roy
Aldridge
Oden
Joel
[Rudy, or insert underwhelming PG here]

Of course the second unit would all be under 6'8".

 

[Minstrel]

If Oden developed (stayed on the court), you could argue the best talent was:

Roy
Aldridge
Oden
Joel
[Rudy, or insert underwhelming PG here]

Of course the second unit would all be under 6'8".

If we wanted to play players out of position and try exotic lineups, my "talent optimal" lineup would be:

C: Przybilla
PF: Oden
SF: Aldridge
SG: Roy
PG: Batum

Batum can't distribute like a point guard, but he can defend point guards better than anyone on the roster (other than maybe Bayless, but right now he's deemed unready to play big minutes). Roy would still be the de facto quarterback.

Ultimately, though, I think:

C: Oden
PF: Aldridge
SF: Batum
SG: Roy
PG: Bayless

will be more conventional and the best lineup of talent. Assuming Bayless develops.

 

[JDC]

Doesn't have the handles to do so. He's not even that great of a ball handler for a PF, let alone a SF.

 

[hasoos]

If we wanted to play players out of position and try exotic lineups, my "talent optimal" lineup would be:

C: Przybilla
PF: Oden
SF: Aldridge
SG: Roy
PG: Batum

Batum can't distribute like a point guard, but he can defend point guards better than anyone on the roster (other than maybe Bayless, but right now he's deemed unready to play big minutes). Roy would still be the de facto quarterback.

Ultimately, though, I think:

C: Oden
PF: Aldridge
SF: Batum
SG: Roy
PG: Bayless

will be more conventional and the best lineup of talent. Assuming Bayless develops.

I completely agree. For once, we might finally get tot he point where nobody on the floor is a damn defensive liability. Contrary to some belief, I also think Bayless will bring toughness to the lineup. It is well known during the olympic trials he got under Chris Paul's skin and they almost threw down.

 

[Ed O]

Doesn't have the handles to do so. He's not even that great of a ball handler for a PF, let alone a SF.

Yes. And I don't think he could guard many small forwards off the dribble, either.

Aldridge at SF is, as I think most of us know, a ridiculous idea.

Ed O.

 

[andalusian]

Aldridge does a fine job of protecting the dribble penetration on switches - so seeing him in the SF position on defense against the bigger small-forwards that give Batum problems is interesting - I for one would love to see what happens if LeBron/'Melo are guarded by LMA - you certainly take away their size/power advantage - and it would be interesting to see if they are so much faster than him laterally to blow-by him on the perimeter - personally, I would be surprised if this happens.

The place where Aldridge is out of position at the SF is on offense, not defense, imho - he does not have the ball handling and face-up game needed from this position - but - since Batum is used so little on offense - I really would like to see him in this position against the big/strong small-forwards that give us problem on defense - and let the other team try to match up with our size/interior presence...

 

[Reep]

If we wanted to play players out of position and try exotic lineups, my "talent optimal" lineup would be:

C: Przybilla
PF: Oden
SF: Aldridge
SG: Roy
PG: Batum

Batum can't distribute like a point guard, but he can defend point guards better than anyone on the roster (other than maybe Bayless, but right now he's deemed unready to play big minutes). Roy would still be the de facto quarterback.

Not to hijack my own thread, but I would LOVE to see Batum at the point. I don't think we have ever seen what he is capable of. Every once in a while you see him bring the ball up the court and Blake is like "hey, young fella, pass over here", then you see Batum hold the ball and explode past the defenders for a fast break. He also has shown flashes of great court vision--usually followed by Joel dropping his pass. I would like to see Batum in that role just for a little bit to see what he could do.

Batum has all the basic skills to be the next Pippen. I think he is deathly afraid of making mistakes so he doesn't push it as much as he could. My dream experimental lineup would be:

Oden [or Joel]
LMA
Webster
Roy
Batum

 

[crandc]

LMA has been compared (game-wise) to Rasheed, and Sheed, recall, played small forward for a time, when Brian Grant was PF. Sheed had a big size advantage over most small forwards and could shoot from anywhere. LMA is not yet the shooter that Sheed was at his best, but the idea is not so outlandish. Depends, though, on who else is on the team. Right now LMA is the best starting PF the Blazers have.

 

[hasoos]

Yes. And I don't think he could guard many small forwards off the dribble, either.

Aldridge at SF is, as I think most of us know, a ridiculous idea.

Ed O.

I disagree. Lamarcus has been able to keep some of the leagues fastest PG in front of him. How many times did he get caught on one of those switches that drove the fans completely crazy this year, and came out on top against a PG. PG have superior speed to any SF type.

 

[Webster's Dictionary]

I don't see LMA at SF as too farfetched, but less than ideal except for certain situations. But like was said above, he does a great job of just staying in front of his man, even if they're a PG. I know we've all seen how many times a pg his dribbled between his legs six times and then shot a jumper. However, LMA has to back off far enough to set up to defend the drive that they usually have a pretty open one.

I would not mind at all seeing it as an experiement against players like Lebron and Carmello, or even against smaller, quicker guys that he could post up, and I think he would be very Sheed like in that style, but ultimately I think he's our PF, and we need to have Webster or Batum playing there.

 

[Boob-No-More]

C: Przybilla
PF: Oden
SF: Aldridge
SG: Roy
PG: Batum

Batum can't distribute like a point guard, but he can defend point guards better than anyone on the roster (other than maybe Bayless, but right now he's deemed unready to play big minutes). Roy would still be the de facto quarterback.

Ah yes, the Triple Towers line-up. We'd be the longest team in the league. I agree that Batum would play PG on defense, but Roy would run the point on offense.

Seriously, Aldridge is our long term answer at PF. The desire to bring in a banger is to back-up Aldridge and give the second unit some tough defense and rebounding from the 4 spot - AKA NOT Channing Frye.

BNM

 

[PtldPlatypus]

C: Przybilla
PF: Oden
SF: Aldridge
SG: Roy
PG: Batum

Batum can't distribute like a point guard, but he can defend point guards better than anyone on the roster (other than maybe Bayless, but right now he's deemed unready to play big minutes). Roy would still be the de facto quarterback.

This was the line-up I wanted to see in the Houston series. Put Batum on Brooks, let Aldridge guard Battier, and have Oden/Joel handle Scola/Yao. I knew it wasn't going to happen, but I certainly suggested it several times in the O-Live forum. If only the coaching staff had visited...

 

[Pritchslap Madness]

I rock playing LMA as SF in NBA 2K9!!

 

[Draco]

Well sometimes a case can be made for just putting your best 5 on the floor and seeing what happens.

This is the only scenario where I think Aldridge should get extensive burn at SF. If its necessary in order to have our 5 best players on the court. If we had a huge logjam with great PF/C's and major holes at other positions, then yeah I could see it. Lets say we got Amare somehow and Greg overcame his foul problem and was playing 35mpg. Then we would need to get all of those guys major minutes. Or a situation like the Clippers may have with Camby/Kaman/ZBo+Griffin; if Lamarcus was on a team like that he could slide to the 3.

But with the current talent on our roster I don't see any chance of it. We have nobody else at PF, its by far our weakest backup position. There is no reason to move Lamarcus away from his most effective position to put an extra marginally talented big man on the floor.

It reminds me of a young KG on the wolves. KG could defend all 5 positions and even handled the ball as backup PG when Cassell went out of the game. They could have easily started him at the 2 or 3. But there wasn't a PF on the bench that was clearly better then their starting SG so it never happened. KG had amazing positional versatility yet the best lineups still had him playing at PF.