Thread Tools

Display Modes

**mgb** · 04-19-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schilly

Now looking at the draft, and fighting off the attempt to brainwash us all, Morrison is no better of a pick as Aldridge. LaMarcus plays D, he rebounds, he plays within himself, he's 6'11" and 240lb. Morrison is a nicew player, but he's not the outside bomber some make him out to be, he's a detriment on D. Good Scorer though. Both players have pro's and Cons, both have health concerns. But I see them as equal from a prospect standpoint.<b> With that said if talent is equal, then go for need. In my book, Aldridge fills a much larger need for us.</b>

Sounds a lot like the logic we used to get Bowie.

mediocre man · 04-19-2006, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgb

Sounds a lot like the logic we used to get Bowie.

Not really. Jordan was clearly more talented than Bowie. morrison, although good, isn't regarded as the no brainer pick ahead of Aldridge, Thomas or Noah if he comes out.

**mgb** · 04-19-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mediocre man

Not really. Jordan was clearly more talented than Bowie. morrison, although good, isn't regarded as the no brainer pick ahead of Aldridge, Thomas or Noah if he comes out.

He wasn't clearyly more talented to a lot of people just as now a lot of people think it's a no brainer picking Morrison over Aldridge. But the main thing is picking need over talent. If they are the same, big IF.

**BBert** · 04-19-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMiLE

*ahem*

but if you CAN'T SCORE it doesn't matter. No matter how many times this team rebounds (or gets the ball), if you don't have anyone who knows how to score, you're not going to score as often.

you have to know how to put the ball in the hoop, before you need to start worrying about how you get the ball to put it in the hoops.

100% disagree. (Take that, italianBBlover

)

Not really. The first sentence is logical. But the second is more philosophical.

You can't score if you don't have the ball. A blind man can put the ball in the basket eventually, but even Larry Bird can't score if he doesn't have the ball in his hands.

If a bad scoring team gets more opportunities, they will score more points. If a good scoring team gets more opportunities, they will score more points. Seems simple to me.

No one in the NBA is so lame that they CAN'T score, ever. Chris Dudley was a horrible free throw shooter. The simple fact remains, he would score more points if given 100 attempts than with only 10 attempts.

Further, I disagree with the premise that the Blazers don't have anyone who knows how to score. Webster will develop into a good scorer, as early as next season (IMO). Dixon has proven he can score. Zach has proven he can score. Miles has proven he can score (if he want's to). Blake can score. Telfair can score, and will get better at it. Jack can drive, and score.

Even Outlaw can score, if given opportunities (as he has proven this week). Opportunities that the Blazers don't get enough of, because they are a horrible rebounding team.

I have to laugh at the back and forth nature of the argument in this thread. Some people, like Steve Jones, are focused on the offensive side of the equation. Others, the other. I love to score as much as the next guy, but the game, IMO, and extra scoring opportunities starts with defense and rebounding.

Just my 2 pesos.

-BBert.

BTW: The egg came first.