Meet LaMarcus Aldridge, our starting SF

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:04 AM PDT Comment 60 comments

Meet LaMarcus Aldridge, the Blazers starting small forward. Far fetched? Sure, but it does give one pause. Let's see, who would he have to guard? Look at the top SFs in the West:

Andrei Kirilenko - 11 PPG. Not going out on a limb to say that LaMarcus isn't going to be torched by this guy.
Peja Stojakovic - 14 PPG. 29 years old. A tough cover for LMA, but will be aging when the Blazers' window opens.
Kevin Durant - 19 PPG. Played the 2, but no one thinks he's anything but a 3 long term. Another tough cover, but Seattle (OKC?) is years from being a playoff threat.
Ron Artest - 21 PPG. Powers to the hoop a lot. I'd bet LMA could stay in front of him.
Lamar Odom - 14 PPG. Puts up a lot of weak stuff. Almost more of a rangy PF. I like LMA's length here.
Josh Howard - 20 PPG. A problem, but Dallas may trade him to rebuild.
Shane Battier - 9 PPG. Not a problem defending, but would he let LMA catch the ball?
Carmelo Anthony - 26 PPG. Melo doesn't see defenders with LMA's length very often. I like our chances here. Besides, who cares about Denver?

LMA doesn't project to be a dynamite rebounder. Most dominant rebounders show good per minute rebounding stats early on - LMA doesn't. Move him to three, and this becomes a plus. It's also a license to trap away from the ball. LaMarcus has the potential to lay down a wicked trap, ala Tayshaun Prince or Kirilenko, but would be stuck manning the paint with Mr. Oden.

So, if LMA moves to the three, who starts at PF? Well, one name that comes to mind, and I haven't seen this mentioned, is Elton Brand, an unrestricted free agent in 2009 (if he exercises his player option). He will want money, a long contract, and will want to win, all of which we can offer him. Achilles surgery isn't a career ender for a player like Brand. Elton's a legit 20/10 guy - a true force in the paint. Just a thought. A front court of LMA, Brand, and Oden? That's just sick and wrong, man. Try scoring against THAT.

Absent Brand, PF is probably the easiest position to solidify, as long as you aren't looking for a "do it all" type. Also, if LMA took over SF, the Blazers could more seriously look at trading Outlaw for PG help.

If LMA filled the SF spot, we would have a serious derth of ball handling in the starting unit. Blake/Roy/Rudy just isn't enough to keep from being trapped. That's the fly in the ointment. Rudy would absolutely have to be able to get his own shot. It also means we're forever a half court team. But really, we overachieved with that philosophy this season. I've yet to be convinced that Roy is the open court wing you need to run.

So, does any of this have merit, or should I just put down the crack pipe and learn to love the Devin Harris vs. Calderon discussions?

2 recs | Comment 60 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

can he dribble better then trout and marty?

if not…...

"you have long words
they make long writing" ratbastird

Celtics over the L*kers, lesser of the 2 evils. But not by much.

by ptwnblzr on Jun 16, 2008 2:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

People say...

we need a three point shooter at SF to open the court.

The Midnight Rambler

by amlmart1 on Jun 16, 2008 2:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think he's too old

Doesn’t fit through our window.

"lowest common denominator - every time I think you hit rock bottom you sink it deeper into the shale" -- bow4meow

by tominhawaii on Jun 16, 2008 3:37 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ouch

zing…...Tom just mocked me from a remote tropical location.

by WarEaglePDX on Jun 16, 2008 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guam

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 16, 2008 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Are you the one who came up with "Window?"

I cannot remember who said that the other day.

"lowest common denominator - every time I think you hit rock bottom you sink it deeper into the shale" -- bow4meow

by tominhawaii on Jun 17, 2008 4:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tis was I

But hey, any news is good news when you are trying to get publicity

by WarEaglePDX on Jun 17, 2008 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I should have just said "Window"

But I didn’t want to steal your thunder, thunder, thunder.

"lowest common denominator - every time I think you hit rock bottom you sink it deeper into the shale" -- bow4meow

by tominhawaii on Jun 17, 2008 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

too big and slow

he’s a power forward who can play some center, not a small forward who plays power forward.

by matthewcc on Jun 16, 2008 5:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Rebounding, half court, etc.

http://www.82games.com/RESORT16.HTM

According to this chart from 82games.com, Aldridge is roughly equal to Rasheed, Gasol, Jermaine O’Neal, and Joe Smith in rebounding. These guys are all legitimate F/C. Good players don’t have to be good at rebounding even at the big man spots. Aldridge’s skill set isn’t quite right for the SF spot. The Blazers tried a lineup of Dale Davis, Zach Randolph, and Rasheed Wallace a few years ago with mediocre results.

In addition, we have no chance of getting Elton Brand. Elton Brand won’t take the MLE, which is all we could offer. The Clippers won’t take a deal of anyone not including our big three.

Moving Outlaw isn’t made any easier by moving Aldridge to the 3. Outlaw played almost all of his minutes at the 4 last year, so Aldridge would be taking minutes from Webster/Jones theoretically.

Finally, there is almost no correlation between pace and wins the last time I checked. Boston, San Antonio, Detroit, New Orleans, Dallas, etc. are slow-paced teams. We could win using half court as long as we’re the better team. We could even win being a jump-shooting team using Detroit as an example.

Sorry for being so negative. It’s not a bad thread and at least it’s something different from a trade/draft thread. This thread actually brings in some different perspective.

by poster on Jun 16, 2008 7:26 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I understood

the original poster’s argument to be that we signed Brand in 2009 when his contract expires. Brand hasn’t yet declared that he’s opting out, has he?

Good comment.

by BlazersOrBust on Jun 16, 2008 7:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brand

I think he makes like $16M and is coming off surgery, so I doubt he’d opt out this summer. If he doesn’t, he’s unrestricted in 2009.

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like your diary

and I think that you did a good job of laying out your argument. But I agree with matthewcc’s characterization of LMA’s positional abilities—LaMarcus does a good job defending smaller guys on the perimeter during switches, but that’s one or two possessions a game, not for 40+ minutes. Any coach worth his salt would be running his SF through off-the-ball screens like crazy, and LMA would be spent halfway through the second quarter. You don’t ask guys who are 6’10” and 250 lbs to chase around guys 50 pounds lighter on the perimeter.

by BlazersOrBust on Jun 16, 2008 7:28 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Vice versa

True, but on the other side of the court, you don’t ask guys to try to defend someone 50 lbs heavier and 3” taller.

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To an extent..

...I think LMA suffers from being in Brandons shadow. Drafted the same year, and the other half of the duo that is developing. Because I’ve heard a lot of criticism in general about LMA’s “toughness” and “rebounding” which leads to discussions like this one. People forget that last season was only LMA’s 2nd, and the first one he was asked to start and play for the full season, his rookie year was hampered by injury and a late start as well as playing behind Zach. From what I see LMA had a fantastic sophmore season. He’s clearly a PF. I drool when I think how he and Oden will compliment each other. I think LMA takes unfair criticism about his rebounding and toughness. In anycase, I see Oden as doing that “Buck Williams” dirty work around the hoop from the center position. I see no advantage or reason to try and make LMA into something he is not, which is “small” as in SF.

"Mother Nature started this fight, I think it's about time we ended it!"

by Krang on Jun 16, 2008 7:38 AM PDT reply actions 5 recs

Here, Here! Bravo! Well written!

Could not have said it better. You win a rec.

LMA's reign as "LaMonster of the Low Post" has just begun!

by LaMarvelous on Jun 16, 2008 12:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe you meant "Hear, hear!"

Otherwise the rec should be yours.

by Love on Jun 16, 2008 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec to you, despite the first sentence

I dont think Brandon casts any shadow on Lamarcus, or that Lamarcus has suffered in any ways besides injury. As far as I can tell Brandon and Lamarcus compliment each other pretty well. Perhaps you would elucidate upon this shadow idea and help me understand. The rest of your post is bullseye.

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 16, 2008 7:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He is is taking elucigens

He elucidates every time he takes them

"My favorite relative was Uncle Caveman. Us kids would visit him in his cave. He would eat one of us from time to time. It wasn't till years later that we realized Uncle Caveman was a bear"

Jack Handy

by 92wastheyear on Jun 16, 2008 8:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I elucidated in a crowded elevator yesterday.

I wish there was a dog in that elevator to blame it on.
“Did somebody step on a duck?”

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why do that ?

We have more SFs than PFs, so why turn our Pfs into 3s ?

by Blenzer on Jun 16, 2008 7:51 AM PDT reply actions 3 recs

Short, sweet, and totally true.

Nice post.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 7:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Artest and Anthony

would give him the most problems. But your point is basically that he plays good perimeter defense for someone with his height, and I agree. He has more trouble with big strong guys than the quicker ones. He also needs to just foul less, regardless of who he’s guarding, so people who draw a lot of free throws would give him problems.

They were talking a lot about playing him at the 3 last year before Greg Oden went down, and having Oden this year makes it a possibility.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 8:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I have thought

he would be a good SF for quite a while. He is so stinkin’ long that he could get his shot over any SF. And he is very fast, and he has such quick feet. You ever see him get switched onto the other teams guards? Most of the time (Kobe included) they pass the ball because LMA stays in fromt of them with his arms up. They cant drive, they can’t shoot. LMA would make a great SF in my opinion. Then we could find another banger type PF. I like LMA at the 3, 4, and spot 5, but I’m also a homer of Rice and Wheels-ness.

My favorite teams are the Blazers and any team that is playing the Lakers.

by OCBlazerFan1 on Jun 16, 2008 9:11 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

He can't dribble

and he can’t defend those guys all game, and he can’t bring back my dead dog Prince. So I say no.

by begottenson on Jun 16, 2008 10:15 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Prince

Yeah, Prince would fit like a glove and would provide enough ball handling that you could go with a combo guard at point.

To move LMA to SF, you’d definitely need a wiz with the ball at PG.

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I literally meant

my dead dog Prince. I miss him. Even though he was a nervous wreck that bit people for no reason.

by begottenson on Jun 16, 2008 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

He can dribble a little

and he’s shown improvement in that department. I believe he can become a reasonably adept dribbler in the mold at least of Sheed. Sheed was never that great of a dribbler but he got the job done.

by Love on Jun 16, 2008 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

There is athing on espn rumors about outlaw

you have to be an insider, anybody an insider? i want to know what it says.

Will Blazers sacrifice outlaw?

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/features/rumors?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fnba%2ffeatures%2frumors

by raging WebTed on Jun 16, 2008 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ESPN just quoted from

and linked this : http://www.columbian.com/sports/localNews/2008/06/06152008_What-Will-It-Take-For-Others-To-Nab-Outlaw.cfm

Joel Freeland=Stud

by hightide on Jun 16, 2008 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Will the PTB sacrifice Outlaw

thats near blasphemy to even suggest

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 16, 2008 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

#25

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Jun 16, 2008 11:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dribbling

LMA is mostly a perimeter guy as-is. While we all want him to bulk up for interior play, this may not actually come to pass, ala Rasheed. He’s 22 and players don’t often “discover the paint” after that age. Also, LMA was the “big guy” in a small lineup this year and was asked to do big guy stuff. Perhaps he has more flexibility than that.

Also keep in mind that he could take some minutes at the PF spot when the starting PF is out.

It’s been interesting to watch the heights of various positions grow through the years. 6’9” used to make you a large PF. Now, it’s considered short for the position and is more of a SF height.

I guess to make the question more specific: KP’s phone rings next summer. Brand says he wants to sign for max money. Do we say “no thanks, we already have a PF”?

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 10:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about that

It depends on what he adds this offseason but last season he was more effective for the Blazers when he was having success in the post. If nothing changes, his offensive game needs to be inside out, not outside in. And we need that from either him or Oden. Just look at Garnett in the Finals: when he makes a habit of posting up and does it well, the Lakers have tremendous difficulty even competing. When he settles for the jumper, it’s a ballgame.

With Oden next year, I think it’s most likely that LMA will be the primary post option. Oden won’t get many plays run for him at first as he gets settled in, but will do garbage work. Things can certainly progress from there though.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Post

Thanks for the response. LMA could get some pretty good post position against NBA SFs. Could also get some high-low double post action going on.

I think you hit it on the head about Garnett: “When he posts up”. The NBA is full of players that should pound it low, but don’t. Garnett is a highly competitive, strong and driven and still drifts outside, even in the finals. If LMA was 19, I’d say he’d be willing to go inside more as he got older. At 22, I’m not so sure.

I’m aware that LMA at SF probably isn’t a great idea, but we should at least consider the possibilities of a fast, lithe, non-bulked up LaMarcus being free to roam the court. Imagine Brand/Oden on the defensive boards and LMA releasing early on the break…

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's just discipline...

I tend to think age 22 is still way young. LMA is still building his game, works very hard, and he’s shown he’s willing to receive coaching and get better at what he learns he should do. So I see him as focusing on the inside, with the extra wrench of being able to shoot outside if needed. Even Zach Randolph went mostly inside when ridden by the coaching staff to do so. This is one of coach McMillan’s strengths: molding players and motivating them to succeed accordingly.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Zach Randolph and discipline

Zach didnt go inside the paint after the game 7 loss to Dallas in his last playoffs with the PTB. Two things I wouldnt have connected.

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 16, 2008 7:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But he WAS a beast in game 6.

I’m glad he’s gone, but coming back from 3-0 in that Dallas series to force game 7 was a good Zach week.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, one thing about Garnett,

who is old at this point, is that he spent most of his formative years playing the 3 because no one else on his team was anywhere near as good as he was and he’d get double and triple teamed. It’s a lot easier to negotiate double teams on the wing than in the post, especially when your jumper is as high as his is. So he learned to play for the jumper instead of playing for the post up. He is basically being asked to be the main post option for the first time in his career. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Anyway, LMA doesn’t have that problem. He has quality teammates, so he can learn things the right way from pretty close to the beginning.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

One thing about Garnett,

Anyway, LMA doesn’t have that problem. He has quality teammates, so he can learn things the right way from pretty close to the beginning.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

gah, double post.... please delete

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on who are PF is...

We did well with Sheed and Zach at the two forward spots (and Dale Davis at center). LMA reminds many of us of Sheed, though he isn’t there yet (skillwise).

But simply moving LMA to the 3, without stating who goes in at 4, doesn’t solve any problems. I don’t like a lineup of Oden/Frye/LMA any better than a conventional lineup. Oden/LMA/Outlaw gives you lots of options, as both Trout and LMA can play either forward spots, but then who is the 3 and who is the 4? A lot of the discussion seems predicated on the belief that a) Martell isn’t going to get any better, and b) we can find a good big man more easily than a big small forward.

by EngineerScotty on Jun 16, 2008 1:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Makes sense

Sometimes you have to ride the NBA wave of good players coming available at times that are not of your choosing. If we get a great SF, problem solved. But what if we had the option to get a bruising PF without giving up a lot?

Some problem in the backcourt. What if we had the chance to get a proven, star SG? Does that make moving Roy to the point more likely? Probably.

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think one thing that could happen is,

Play Oden, LMA, and Outlaw together, and put LMA inside on offense and outside on defense. Trout does the opposite, which are his strengths as well.

by ranma on Jun 16, 2008 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take Zbo over Brand.

"Beards--they grow on you"

by prezofdeath on Jun 16, 2008 3:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This reminds me

After the RaSheed Wallace was acquired from the Wiz, ‘Sheed was tried at the 3 because Brian Grant was the PF

How’d that work out?

pass

by two4larue on Jun 16, 2008 3:34 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

WCF

I seem to remember it working well enough to get us to the Western Conference finals.

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was talking about the player

After the 3 “experiment” Sheed shied away from post contact and launched more 3s than Uncle Cliffy

Nate will make sure history doesn’t repeat with LMA

by two4larue on Jun 16, 2008 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since when did Lamarcus become a 3 pt threat

I dont think Nate has to worry about Lamarcus stepping out, when his mid-range game is where he is deadly. Have the PTB considered Lamarcus at the Point?

If you dont talk to your cats about catnip, who will?

by bow4meow on Jun 16, 2008 7:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Since when did Lamarcus become a 3 pt threat"

the 08-09 season.

by Sabonis4Ever on Jun 16, 2008 10:37 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

For the most part, they were injured at separate times . . .

. . . and ended up alternating at PF until Grant went to Miami.
Sheed was shelved for just about a year, and that’s when The Rasta Monsta did some damage in ‘99.
Sheed got fully recovered just in time for Grant’s plantar fasciitis to become an issue.
They DID play together at times, but it was mostly when Sheed was back but not %100,
and then later when Grant was playing but hobbled by Da Plantar.

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gimmick

Gimmicks don’t win championships and they certaintly don’t make dynasties. (only 1 exception: Magic Johnson). I think your argument holds water if the team was in a pinch and all our perimeter players were injured (or less likely, suspended). LMA could be a makeshift 3, but its definitely not a good idea to build the team like that. With a frontcourt of Oden, Brand and LMA wouldn’t we have some serious duplication in what they give? No 3 point shooting, no creating their own shot off the dribble from the perimeter, no rolling off screens to get the catch and shoot….....lastly, LMA’s ceiling on defense is to barely be adequate. I like the idea, but its not realistic if you have a championship goal.

by WarEaglePDX on Jun 16, 2008 7:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I've sporadically advocated . . .

. . . going with a big lineup for small stretches of some games,
with LMA at small forward alongside Oden AND proven-starter-quality Przybilla.
Not a starting lineup, mind you; just something to use for 5-8 minute stretches to ruin basket access
and dominate boards – a kill-the-opponent’s-offense stopper unit.

Six minutes of THAT against any team that’s doing too much damage in the paint, and we’re good.
And yes, that includes the L[xxx]rs anytime Coby gets supra hott (which he never does in the RG, anyway).

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 7:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Hypothetical

To clarify, my point isn’t that LMA is a natural SF, just that it shouldn’t be completely verboten to throw the idea around. There is some chance that we will be in the situation where Elton Brand is our only option to make use of our “use it or lose it” 2009 cap space. In this case, do you pass on a player like Brand because you don’t want to make LMA a SF?

by Engineering Problem on Jun 16, 2008 8:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd sooner make Brand a small forward.

That might sound silly, but I’d try it.
No worse than Lamar Odom at the 3 (which he will be next year, when Bynum’s back and Pau slides to power forward).

Blazers have a five-on-three...and they pull it back and wait for help.

by QualityPie on Jun 16, 2008 9:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm All for Vets, but..

I’d sooner see a vet closer to his ‘ride off in the sunset’ age. I don’t think anyone of ‘vet’ status is going to be much of a contributor in the Blazers’ if/when championship run, so I really don’t think we’re super attractive to them right now. We still have a few years before we start getting Cassell-like barnacles on this ring ship.

Furthermore, if we WERE to get a vet right now, I’d be really happy to get someone with experience and rings to show the young’ns the ropes. That said, the ideal position, to me, would be PG, as that is the most cerebral position and has the steepest learning curve. I agree with most everyone else that we already have a lock at PF, a crunch at SF and don’t need to further complicate matters down low. Just my two cents.

"Well, Travis just showed us that we can go to Travis Outlaw." - Nate McMillan

by 12sharks on Jun 16, 2008 11:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

This post has credence

from Coach Nate last summer when he contemplated Frye at PF and LMA at SF. That was before we lost Greg and before Webster came on strong. Not sure he would consider it now as a regular starting position.

We do know that both KP and Coach Nate highly value flexibility of position for players so LMA may indeed play some with Frye and Greg or Joel on the floor. Matchups and creating matchup problems are important.

Aldridge said. "We feel like we can beat any team. We feel like we can beat the Spurs, Suns, Lakers, Mavericks, whoever any night right now, and we'll still be here when those teams get old and their guys retire. We're going to be here for a long time."

by lee3022 on Jun 16, 2008 11:35 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

SMOOTH at PF !

Although Smooth has some attributes of a SF (“TOR” jumper to 20’, speed
up & down & good lateral quickness), I also think guarding smaller slashing
SF’s would give him trouble for 38 + mpg a game.
I think his strengths at PF will be evident this season with more power, ball
handling and GO. As you may remember from last year’s brief summer league,
he cut off GO’s double teams for throwdowns multiple. In addition, he has started
featuring the rolling hook in the lane and will add the “Smooth Shake” to his
arsenal this season. In a short time, his game will have a nice mix of the Dream down
low, the Admiral in the open court and “Gentleman” Sheed facing up. He will keep
improving his defense & rebounding as GO running mate.
Dangerously Smooth !

DOWN WITH COINCAST !!! BRING BACK THE BLAZERS TO SO. OREGON !!!!

It's GO time !

by walkoff41 on Jun 17, 2008 1:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs