Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 501 Posts

·
"Meow."
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.

Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now.

On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.
 

·
The Snake
Joined
·
6,519 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

Yea Gibson needs to stay at Texas and learn how to run the point. He looked awful tonight but yea LaMarcus was definitely on the top of his game. I still like Morrison (despite the idiocy of J.P. Batista and Derek Raivio) but Aldridge's game looks better for what we need right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwt and LegoHat

·
"Meow."
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I haven't seen Morrison yet (we only get tournament games) so my post wasn't comparing the two. Maybe Morrison could be the star we were looking for? Regardless, I bet the Bulls are instantly a playoff team with Aldridge on the roster.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,393 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I agree that Aldridge is what we need out of a post player. He brings a skill set that no one on our roster comes close to (unfortuantely). He would likely be a starter from day one. His ability is also yet to be realized since the texas guards are so bad and selfish. He's already everything Chandler should be but isn't. Outside of being a shot blocker, he's a better player than Chandler now.

Morrison is a very good shooter and has a fire you love to see in a guy. But again, does he really bring what we are lacking? Does he bring such a complete game that we would move an existing starter and be able to win with the current holes? I keep answering no. He a good, not great player. I'm sorry, but I've watch 6 or 7 of his games this season and he is given the benefit of calls that he's not gonna get in the NBA (just ask Kirk Hinrich). Also, his defense really is poor. Ask Ben Gordon what happens - doesn't matter how good your offense is, you give up too many points on the other end and get your frontcourt in foul trouble. Can Morrison be a all-star caliber player - maybe, if he's only judged on offense. Would he be an NBA top 100 all-time player - No. I don't see anyone in this draft of that caliber. So if there are a number of guys close in talent and impact range, gotta fill a need. Getting Morrison causes us to have to move Deng and he's our best player and a much better two way player than Morrison. Yeah, we might be able to bulk up Deng and get him minutes at the PF spot, but ask Kirk Hinrich how well that works in the long run.
 

·
Rollin Wit Da Homies
Joined
·
5,077 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

such sweet thunder said:
Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.

Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now.
Great post. Helped me come to a decision on him myself. I think that the "Iggy in a big man's body" is a perfect analogy.

On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.
Totally true. But I think that he's going to be able to get drafted anyway because he is quick and really aggressive, and a good handler. Terrible passing vision, though, and not a generally good passer. Aldridge really spoiled him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nwt and LegoHat

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,379 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I think there's some doubt about Aldridge because he's skinny but not an elite athlete. He is very skilled though and has good instincts. I've said a few times that I think his development as a pro will be based on his ability to put on useful weight.
 

·
"Meow."
Joined
·
5,597 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

TripleDouble said:
I think there's some doubt about Aldridge because he's skinny but not an elite athlete. He is very skilled though and has good instincts. I've said a few times that I think his development as a pro will be based on his ability to put on useful weight.
I've heard that knock. . . and I don't really see it on two accounts.

First, Aldridge has a Yao Ming type frame. He has a lot of weight on his lower body so he is deceptively strong. He positions himself well and I don't think weight will be much of a factor.

Second, Aldridge is more of a slippery-type rebounder. I actually think he blocks out too much. He is at his best when he just moves around the hoop chasing the ball. More of a Rodman-type of rebounder than a Shaq-type. Aldridge's instincts on the glass really are superb. I don't think his ability to clear the ball is all that dependant on his strength.

In many ways his frame looks to me like the new-prototype for center: a little bit smaller, more agile, and quicker in transition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,148 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

such sweet thunder said:
Just finished watching Texas - WVA. I would be absolutely pleased if we came away with Aldridge from this years draft. He has a complete pro-skill set that will make him an instant impact player: plays defense like a pro; passes out of a double-team like a pro; doesn't draw ticky-tack fouls so he'll be able to stay on the court as a pro; runs the open court like a pro; establishes position like a pro; turn around jumper will be effective as a pro. And, most of all, I wouldn't be surprised if he is among the five best rebounders in the league next year.

Aldridge reminds me a lot of Iguodala in that his deficiencies will not hamper his ability to learn on the court. He may not have an arsenal of post moves, but that will come. He catches everything and does the type of things that could help the Bulls win right now.

On a side note, good luck to whomever drafts Daniel Gibson next year. Half the reason Aldridge's hands are so good is Gibson has been feeding him some of the ugliest passes this side of Khalid El-Amin. Most pros are not going to be able to handle that garbage. Add in the brutal shot selection, and bad on-court decisions and you have a recipe for disaster.
I don't think Gibson will be coming out. You've got to make a pretty significant impact to get drafted high as a combo guard, and he hasn't made one this year. He's the third best player on that team. Going into the season he looked like an Iverson type lottery pick, at this point he's mid first round at best, IMHO.

Aldridge had a nice game but I'm still not sold. Texas has made it to the Elite 8 playing low seeds and teams with no interior presence, I've seen too many lackluster performances from Aldridge this year for me to get excited about him. I hope Texas keeps advancing so I can get a better look but as of now I don't see him as a sure thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,974 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

such sweet thunder said:
I haven't seen Morrison yet (we only get tournament games) so my post wasn't comparing the two. Maybe Morrison could be the star we were looking for? Regardless, I bet the Bulls are instantly a playoff team with Aldridge on the roster.
As I watched Gonzaga lose to UCLA in the last seconds of the game, I couldn't help but think that Pax and Skiles were watching the game together. I was looking at Morrison and wondering what it'd be like for him to be on the court for the Bulls. Pax was looking at Morrison and wondering what he'd look like with a shave and a haircut. Skiles was looking at Morrison and wondering what he'd look like on the bench.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,191 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I was talking with my buddy yesterday about how big men are so hard to judge. Because the quality and unselfishness of your guards have such a huge effect on the big man's ability to produce numbers. Like last night, Bradley's guards couldn't slash past the free throw line, nor could they find daylight to feed O'Bryant (he finished with 8 points on 8 shots, mostly off put-backs); though that speaks volumes about how good Memphis is. Same with Aldridge though, it's hard to get a read on him because of his guards. And Shelden Williams is the opposite...his numbers could very well be inflated because he plays in an unselfish system with unselfish players. Guards control the game, and big man is only as good as the guards make him (the NBA example of this is the Knicks, who have some real talent on the frontline, but a horrible group of perimeter players).

Anyway, back to Aldridge. I haven't seen much of him this year, but I chose a good night to see him yesterday. The kid looks VERY skilled, just as good as advertised. Very smooth handling and shooting the ball from 10-12 feet in (I would think this would expand with hard work). And I didn't know he was Big 12 DPOY either, so it sounds like his defense is up to par.

Man, if we could somehow draft Aldridge with the Knicks' pick AND O'Bryant with our own pick, that'd be MONEY.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,349 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I was going to watch this game but they showed the other game here!

We got excited over O'bryant and now we are doing the same over Aldridge. I know some people have been in his corner all season. When I saw him play(4-5 times) he did not impress me. Maybe I saw all of his bad games, I dont know.

Since they are in the final 8, I hope to go I get to watch him this weekend. I will say more about him then.

As a change of direction does anybody else think that Pittsnogle is the second coming of Brad Lohaus??? The kid can shoot the three. I would say Bill Lambieer but he was more physical than Pittsnogle is at this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,217 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I was impressed with Aldridge last night. I must admit to not having seen a whole lot of him throughout this season, but what I saw last night was pretty good. He's got nice touch on his shot. Nice, high release point. He's very fluid for a guy his size. He runs the floor effortlessly. The kid's a player. I think his skillset would translate well to the NBA. There were a few times when Pittsnogle was overplaying his right hand and it would have been nice to see him spin and drive left (he tried it once but sort of lost control of his dribble and had to pass out). That'll come in time. I wouldn't be too upset if he ended up on the Bulls. He definatly helped his stock out last night, that's for sure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,716 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

truebluefan said:
As a change of direction does anybody else think that Pittsnogle is the second coming of Brad Lohaus??? The kid can shoot the three. I would say Bill Lambieer but he was more physical than Pittsnogle is at this time.
Pittsnogle is better than Lohaus. I think there is a place in the league for him.
 

·
The Snake
Joined
·
6,519 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

Sorry I didn't mean to bring Morrison into this, but I can't help but see that competitive fire that people like Wade had, etc. Morrison isn't the next Bird, but he can shoot, handle, and can get to the bucket. Aldridge has to be our pick if we get one. We need a low post scoring option and if we can pick up Gooden in FA, bringing Aldridge in as our third big makes us so much better I can't even comprehend it, AND he can pass the ball and play defense. Pittsnoggle intrigues me. I'd blow a high 2nd round pick on him simply because he's in that Matt Bullard/Brad Lohaus mode of a big guy who can shoot the 3. If he beefs up and catches the desire to play in the low post sometime I could see him having a similar impact to that of Sam Perkins. He'd be the perfect center to play next to Stoudemire in Phoenix or hell even Dirk in Dallas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,808 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I see Aldridge being ALOT better than Gooden....

Aldridge is NBA ready. All he needs his summer league play and training camp & he should easily be able to contribute. Him being the 3rd big in a rotation where he'd prolly be better than both isn't a good idea IMO. He needs to start
 

·
Rollin Wit Da Homies
Joined
·
5,077 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

I have watched a lot of Aldridge this season, as Texas has been on national TV almost every week. I've said this in other threads, but I really see a lot of Shareef in him, with that turnaround jumper, smooth skill, and rebounding. Aldridge IS a bit skinnier but Shareef wasn't that thick when he came in the league.

I know that sounds like a terrible comparison because Reef has such a terrible knock on him. But the fact is, he's been a big-time big man in this league during his career. He averaged more than a steal and a block per game in three different seasons and other than his very weird penchant to shoot a few threes here and there, the guy is a really solid player. The Kings are playing like a team with a passion, so I think they'll hold onto that 8th seed and finally give Shareef his playoff berth. In all fairness, that knock that he's a perennial loser isn't really fair when you look at the teams he's been on: Vancouver, Atlanta, Portland after they got really bad.

I digress. If Aldridge comes in the league as a 19 and 7 guy and goes on to become a 20/10/3/1/1 guy, I think we'll have done better than getting anyone on the FA market.
 

·
That'll do Pigley...
Joined
·
51,186 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

Pittsnogle would be alright, if he rebounded worth a damn. He's a 6'11 C who doesn't want to go down low and rebound at all. I mean check the numbers, WVU got outrebounded by 29 yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LegoHat

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,713 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

johnston797 said:
I can't see Pax passing on Aldridge. The guy really fits what we need.
Me neither. Its just that I think we need the #1 pick to get him. Or the #2 pick with Charlotte having the #1.

Its still a statistical longshot in my book.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,470 Posts
Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

To me the only slightly legit first round pick Aldridge has played against all year is Williams and we saw how that went. What he did against Pittsnogle does not impress me.
 
1 - 20 of 501 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top