Interesting mostly unbiased view of the Blazers

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
julius said:
Do people think he's leading the team to the promised land, or is that a manufactured argument made?

It's true , the team needs a superstar, but they're not likely to get one by trading LaMarcus
Click to expand...

Based on the number of people who get defensive or outright hostile when you bring up the topic I'd say that there's a considerable portion of the people that post around here who think (or at least hope) he's the guy to lead this team to championship contention.

Personally I think he's more second fiddle than a true top ten player, who can carry a team when everybody else is faltering around him. If there's anybody currently on the roster who has a shot of being that kind of guy it's Lillard and I think it's a little early to say whether or not that's likely to happen -- he'll definitely be "good" but will he be great?

If the only reasonable way to contend for a title is to somehow acquire a top ten player -- the kind of guy that gets brought up in MVP conversations -- then what do you do? Trades rarely happen with those kinds of guys, except when they're forcing their way out to a "destination city" and free agent MVP caliber players just don't pick places like Portland. If LaMarcus isn't the man, then their best shot of getting a guy who is, most likely happens through the draft.

So really if LaMarcus is traded we all know it won't be for an established superstar, at best you trade him for as many lottery picks as you can and then pray that get lucky and hit the jackpot.

The thing is, it's pretty clear to me that most people around here would rather hold on to being "respectable," with lots of first and second round exits vs. enduring the pain of being a lottery team until they strike it rich with a franchise level player. I'm always in favor of the high risk, high reward approach, but I can understand why most people aren't.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Based on the number of people who get defensive or outright hostile when you bring up the topic I'd say that there's a considerable portion of the people that post around here who think (or at least hope) he's the guy to lead this team to championship contention.

Personally I think he's more second fiddle than a true top ten player, who can carry a team when everybody else is faltering around him. If there's anybody currently on the roster who has a shot of being that kind of guy it's Lillard and I think it's a little early to say whether or not that's likely to happen -- he'll definitely be "good" but will he be great?

If the only reasonable way to contend for a title is to somehow acquire a top ten player -- the kind of guy that gets brought up in MVP conversations -- then what do you do? Trades rarely happen with those kinds of guys, except when they're forcing their way out to a "destination city" and free agent MVP caliber players just don't pick places like Portland. If LaMarcus isn't the man, then their best shot of getting a guy who is, most likely happens through the draft.

So really if LaMarcus is traded we all know it won't be for an established superstar, at best you trade him for as many lottery picks as you can and then pray that get lucky and hit the jackpot.

The thing is, it's pretty clear to me that most people around here would rather hold on to being "respectable," with lots of first and second round exits vs. enduring the pain of being a lottery team until they strike it rich with a franchise level player. I'm always in favor of the high risk, high reward approach, but I can understand why most people aren't.
Click to expand...

If Aldridge can net us a superstar talent, then I'd be all for it. But if you trade Aldridge for players that are still second fiddle or maybe 3-5th fiddle; then what's the point?!

Aldridge and Matthews for Howard is a great deal. Aldridge for Monroe and a couple players doesn't move the needle.
 
magnifier661 said:
If Aldridge can net us a superstar talent, then I'd be all for it. But if you trade Aldridge for players that are still second fiddle or maybe 3-5th fiddle; then what's the point?!

Aldridge and Matthews for Howard is a great deal. Aldridge for Monroe and a couple players doesn't move the needle.
Click to expand...

Are two second fiddles better than one?


My theory is always " does it make you better" Or at least better on paper

Aldridge > Monroe

But Aldridge < Monroe, Singler, Maggette (expiring, additional 11 mm in cap space for someone like Milsap) and a 1st

Monroe and Milsap are probably better than Aldridge and anyone we could get at center
 
Mediocre Man said:
Are two second fiddles better than one?


My theory is always " does it make you better" Or at least better on paper

Aldridge > Monroe

But Aldridge < Monroe, Singler, Maggette (expiring, additional 11 mm in cap space for someone like Milsap) and a 1st

Monroe and Milsap are probably better than Aldridge and anyone we could get at center
Click to expand...

Look at millsap this season and get back to me. Hickson and Aldridge are greater than Monroe and millsap this season already. Wtf?!

And Monroe and singler is not even close to being better than Aldridge. Sorry, play it all you want; but it just won't change my mind.
 
magnifier661 said:
If Aldridge can net us a superstar talent, then I'd be all for it. But if you trade Aldridge for players that are still second fiddle or maybe 3-5th fiddle; then what's the point?!

Aldridge and Matthews for Howard is a great deal. Aldridge for Monroe and a couple players doesn't move the needle.
Click to expand...

Best case in a trade for Aldridge is young guy that think still has untapped potential. He might not currently be better than LaMarcus, but someday he might be. Barring that you trade him for a player and a top five lottery pick and gamble that the pick turns into a great player.

Think of it like this: let's say you've got a really nice hand in a poker game, but for whatever reason you know that there's one player at the table with a better hand and you can't bluff him. Do you hold on to your "really nice hand" and lose and say afterward, "gee I was so close!" or do you turn in four or five cards and take the 2% chance that it might be better than the guy with the current winning hand? Personally I'd trade in the 0% chance hand for the 2% chance.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Best case in a trade for Aldridge is young guy that think still has untapped potential. He might not currently be better than LaMarcus, but someday he might be. Barring that you trade him for a player and a top five lottery pick and gamble that the pick turns into a great player.

Think of it like this: let's say you've got a really nice hand in a poker game, but for whatever reason you know that there's one player at the table with a better hand and you can't bluff him. Do you hold on to your "really nice hand" and lose and say afterward, "gee I was so close!" or do you turn in four or five cards and take the 2% chance that it might be better than the guy with the current winning hand? Personally I'd trade in the 0% chance hand for the 2% chance.
Click to expand...

Well if we could trade Aldridge for Drummond and singler; I would be excited. That falls into your category.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Best case in a trade for Aldridge is young guy that think still has untapped potential. He might not currently be better than LaMarcus, but someday he might be. Barring that you trade him for a player and a top five lottery pick and gamble that the pick turns into a great player.

Think of it like this: let's say you've got a really nice hand in a poker game, but for whatever reason you know that there's one player at the table with a better hand and you can't bluff him. Do you hold on to your "really nice hand" and lose and say afterward, "gee I was so close!" or do you turn in four or five cards and take the 2% chance that it might be better than the guy with the current winning hand? Personally I'd trade in the 0% chance hand for the 2% chance.
Click to expand...

Well if we could trade Aldridge for Drummond and singler; I would be excited. That falls into your category.
 
Natebishop3 said:
And during those three years he averaged

11.3 FGA
11.8 FGA
11.9 FGA

He was just a very efficient shooter.

53.8%
51.4%
50%

We're looking at FGA as the main point here.

Lillard 15.5 FGA
Paul 12.0 FGA (has never averaged under 12 FGA, while Stockton never averaged over 11 FGA in his career)
Deron 13.5 FGA (although he has averaged many more FGA in his career)
Click to expand...

The guy scored 17 PPG for several seasons. That's a scoring PG, regardless of how many FGA.

Rajon Rondo is a pass-first PG.
 
magnifier661 said:
Look at millsap this season and get back to me. Hickson and Aldridge are greater than Monroe and millsap this season already. Wtf?!

And Monroe and singler is not even close to being better than Aldridge. Sorry, play it all you want; but it just won't change my mind.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the hate is for Milsap?

18/9/1.2blks in 36 minutes
20.6 PER

vs Aldridge at 21/9/1.2 in 36 minutes
20.2 PER
 
As I see it:

1.) Lillard - Super little Man
2.) LMA - Big Robin
3.) Batum- Batman
4.) Mathews- Iron Man
5.) Hulk ???

With a True Six Man and a bench, that starting five (If we find that elusive C) could contend with two years of polish under their belt.
 
The "big 3" ifor POR s not good enough to carry them an NBA title, and putting your hopes in Leonard progressing into a high quality center is dubious at best....
 
Blaze01 said:
The "big 3" ifor POR s not good enough to carry them an NBA title, and putting your hopes in Leonard progressing into a high quality center is dubious at best....
Click to expand...

I see Leonard being our big bench player. We need a starting defensive minded center.

This summer; we need to find that starting center first; then find the back up pg, then the scoring 6th man.
 
Still can't get over how many people think of Dame today as the Dame of the future. As mook said, the kid is not a traditional 4 year player, and has some glaring holes in his game right now. And we've already seen improvement in 50 games. Just wait until he gets a few summers under his belt.
 
Denny Crane said:
The guy scored 17 PPG for several seasons. That's a scoring PG, regardless of how many FGA.

Rajon Rondo is a pass-first PG.
Click to expand...

Rajon Rondo was averaging 12.2 FGA before going down with the injury this season.... and as I stated before, John Stockton never averaged more than 11.9 FGA, so I fail to see how Rondo is more of a pass-first point guard than Stockton. It's not about how many points you score, but how many shots you take. Don't penalize Stockton for shooting over 50% from the field.
 
magnifier661 said:
Well if we could trade Aldridge for Drummond and singler; I would be excited. That falls into your category.
Click to expand...

Drummond isn't a top 10 player. The point would be to trade Aldridge for the chance at a top 10 player, IE the draft. Lillard plays well enough off the ball that we could target a top 10 quality guard or forward and I don't think it would affect his game negatively.

I would still like to see if Indiana would trade Paul George for Aldridge.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Rajon Rondo was averaging 12.2 FGA before going down with the injury this season.... and as I stated before, John Stockton never averaged more than 11.9 FGA, so I fail to see how Rondo is more of a pass-first point guard than Stockton. It's not about how many points you score, but how many shots you take. Don't penalize Stockton for shooting over 50% from the field.
Click to expand...

My bad. I equate scoring with actual points, not with efficiency or some other measure.

:)
 
Natebishop3 said:
Drummond isn't a top 10 player. The point would be to trade Aldridge for the chance at a top 10 player, IE the draft. Lillard plays well enough off the ball that we could target a top 10 quality guard or forward and I don't think it would affect his game negatively.

I would still like to see if Indiana would trade Paul George for Aldridge.
Click to expand...

He would have the largest upside IMO.
 
HailBlazers said:
As I see it:

1.) Lillard - Super little Man
2.) LMA - Big Robin
3.) Batum- Batman
4.) Mathews- Iron Man
5.) Hulk ???

With a True Six Man and a bench, that starting five (If we find that elusive C) could contend with two years of polish under their belt.
Click to expand...

I don't care where they put their polish, that team cannot beat OKC or Miami ... not even close.
 
Denny Crane said:
My bad. I equate scoring with actual points, not with efficiency or some other measure.

:)
Click to expand...

We're not talking about scoring, we're talking about shooting. Pass-first vs shoot-first equates to someone taking shots. Whether they make them or not is irrelevant. You're claiming that Stockton was a shoot-first point guard because he scored 17 ppg, but I say he only scored 17 ppg because the guy shot over 50% from the field. He took less shots than any of those other point guards, and while Rondo has usually taken less FGA in his career, I think the sample size is too small. Rondo has only played 6.5 years in the league. Stockton played 19 years. He only averaged over 15 ppg three times in those 19 years, so for you to point to those three years as some kind of evidence that he was a shoot-first point guard is ridiculous. His career FGA was 9.1

Compare those to the other names I listed, and guess who is at the bottom? Guess who has a lower career FGA than your pass-first point guard?:

Derrick Rose 17.5
Russell Westbrook 16.2
Gary Payton 14.0
Chris Paul 13.9
Deron Williams 13.8
Tony Parker 13.7
Kevin Johnson 12.5
Jason Kidd 11.3
Steve Nash 10.6
Rajon Rondo 9.5
John Stockton 9.1
 
mook said:
I'm surprised how little upside Lillard gets credit for in that forum. Seems like most think he's about as good as he'll ever get, which is a strange way to view an NBA rookie PG. When was the last time a stud rookie PG never advanced much? Steve Francis or Damon Stoudamire?
Click to expand...

Interesting comparison, because those were the quintessential "selfish" point guards, with no means really of expanding their game, and I don't see any danger of Lillard fitting that mold.
 
handiman said:
Interesting comparison, because those were the quintessential "selfish" point guards, with no means really of expanding their game, and I don't see any danger of Lillard fitting that mold.
Click to expand...

Especially since Lillard seems to be one of the most humble and down to earth, hard working guys on the team. Damon was just a little bitch. I never forgave him for crying about minutes when we were just about to start the WCF against San Antonio. Unforgivable in my eyes.
 
Natebishop3 said:
We're not talking about scoring, we're talking about shooting. Pass-first vs shoot-first equates to someone taking shots. Whether they make them or not is irrelevant. You're claiming that Stockton was a shoot-first point guard because he scored 17 ppg, but I say he only scored 17 ppg because the guy shot over 50% from the field. He took less shots than any of those other point guards, and while Rondo has usually taken less FGA in his career, I think the sample size is too small. Rondo has only played 6.5 years in the league. Stockton played 19 years. He only averaged over 15 ppg three times in those 19 years, so for you to point to those three years as some kind of evidence that he was a shoot-first point guard is ridiculous. His career FGA was 9.1

Compare those to the other names I listed, and guess who is at the bottom? Guess who has a lower career FGA than your pass-first point guard?:

Derrick Rose 17.5
Russell Westbrook 16.2
Gary Payton 14.0
Chris Paul 13.9
Deron Williams 13.8
Tony Parker 13.7
Kevin Johnson 12.5
Jason Kidd 11.3
Steve Nash 10.6
Rajon Rondo 9.5
John Stockton 9.1
Click to expand...

By your definition, Wilt was a pass-first C because he had a season where he took just 14 FGA and had 8 assists per game.

Nash, btw, has scored over 15 PPG 9 times and over 18 twice. In no way would I call him a pass first PG. He absolutely looks for his own shot and dishes when guys are open.
 
Denny Crane said:
By your definition, Wilt was a pass-first C because he had a season where he took just 14 FGA and had 8 assists per game.

Nash, btw, has scored over 15 PPG 9 times and over 18 twice. In no way would I call him a pass first PG. He absolutely looks for his own shot and dishes when guys are open.
Click to expand...

He has the lowest FGA, which means he took the least amount of field goals on that list, yet he averaged over 10 assists per game for his entire 19 year career. He had more assists per game than attempted field goals, of which he made over half. Not sure what more you would want in a point guard. I'm done trying to convince you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

oldfisherman
10 LEAST valuable NBA contract includes three Blazers.
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
SlyPokerDog
Boozer out for season, broken rib?
Replies
28
Views
1K
Shooter
Shooter
KingSpeed
RealGM forum on Blazers
Replies
12
Views
616
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
KSF-ERIC
Giannis & Dame?
Replies
28
Views
1K
blazerkor
blazerkor
retroblazers
somebody found a strange quirk in Lillards jump shot
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
rasheedfan2005
rasheedfan2005

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top