[Ron Cey]

Re: Lamarcus Aldridge. . . bad motha

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.

 

[Ron Cey]

Thomas, the FRESHMAN, is the leader of that team.

No he's not. But he is definitely an interesting prospect and a refreshing addition to the mix of possibilities if he declares.

 

[Ron Cey]

Did anyone tape the Texas/LSU game, or do they know the answer to this question offhand?

Did Aldridge receive a single post entry pass during the overtime? I don't think he took a shot in the OT, but was that his fault?

Just wondering.

No, he didn't. Not one single touch that wasn't a rebound.

He didn't have a good game shooting, that much is certain. But I think the characterization that he "disappeared" at the end of the game is unfair. He didn't disappear - he was made invisible. There is a difference.

 

[Ron Cey]

I dunno...I got the impression that he didn't want the ball in the 2nd half and OT. He seemed to drift away from the ball.

Our memories diverge. I recall him fighting for - and getting - position multiple times in OT, but everyone just kept jacking 3s. Including Buckman.

I don't really remember the latter portion of the second half, but I distinctly recall wondering to myself why no one was willing to make an entry pass to him in OT. My exact thought was agreement with the countless posts I've read this year (by people who follow college ball and the Big 12 more than I do) saying that Texas' guard play sucked in that they never got the ball to Aldridge and that his numbers were "in spite of" horridly selfish teammates.

 

[Ron Cey]

You tell me who else he's played of significance and what he did.

You know, for a guy who is all about O'Bryant and Armstrong, I don't understand how you can use this argument. Indeed, the argument can be used against literally every single big man in college basketball - because there aren't many.

The reality is that the stud bigs have largely been going pro recently, turning college basketball into a guard's game. The good bigs that do go to college, will rarely be matched up against other bigs of "significance".

Armstrong has been a career underacheiver and just now began to "bust out" with 9 and 6. 3 bad YEARS and one marginal season and you are starting threads about how he can give us what Eddy Curry did.

Same with O'Bryant. I mean, I can't imagine you've actually seen him play more than a few times, he has one excellent game against Gray and then he's your guy. But he only scored 4 points in the first round of the tourney. What about that game?

Your criteria is illogical. LaMarcus Aldridge is a terrific prospect. So is Thomas and it appears Noah as well. Hell, Noah might be the best of the lot. I don't see why any of these guys should be getting bagged on. I'd take any one of them.

 

[Ron Cey]

But, I admit, it is flattering that you're doing a research paper on me :biggrin:.

Don't bait me like that. A "research paper" about the many incarnations of LBMatrix the internet message board poster would not be very flattering.

I am simply recalling positive positions you took with respect to other bigs in threads created by you for that purpose. Those positions are in stark contrast to your opinion of Lamarcus Aldridge, but the criteria has not been applied evenly.

When you are rarely matched up against other bigs of significance "one game" is a bigger deal than it was in 1984, when you had maybe 15 games in your career against other bigs of significance, AND many times they were upperclassmen, which is rare now.

No its not. The sample size remains woefully small. Who is the NBA calibur center that held Patrick O'Bryant to 8 points in the Memphis game - the biggest game of his life?

At various times this season, O'Bryant was held to:

4 points by Drake
5 points by Southern Illinois
9 points by Wichita State
4 points by Creighton
6 points by Missouri State
9 points by Drake
6 points by Creighton
8 points by Kansas

Yes, Aldridge had bad games this season (a 2 point stinker against Baylor, for example). Yes, he only scored 4 points in a big game. He shot the ball poorly. But he also had 10 boards, 5 blocks, 2 steals and 2 assists in that game. Far too much is being made of it.

 

[Ron Cey]

And, I'm not worried about what O'Bryant DOESN'T do against lowly competition. I'm worried about what he DOES do against good competition. The same is true of Aldridge. I'm not too worried about disappearing acts he pulled during the season against guys who will never play in the NBA. Like Johnston said, Dakich shut down Jordan. So I'm not too worried about Aldridge's shortcomings or O'Bryant's or Thomas' or Redick's against guys who will never play in the NBA.

Thats an interesting way of looking at it.

Shooting poorly, but playing an otherwise very good game against an NBA calibur post player = bad and troublesome.

Playing poorly and getting shut down twice each by Creighton and Drake = nothing to worry about.

 

[Ron Cey]

EDIT: I guess a good way to put it is that we already have a guy in Tyson where we cop out by saying "Oh it's ok that Tyson didn't score, he got us other stuff like rebounds and blocks tonight. We don't ask him to be an offensive player." IMO we can't afford a guy with this pick or with big free agent dollars (see Pryzbilla) who we also say that "oh it's ok that he hasn't been scoring the ball effectively lately, he does so many other things for us." We already have "other things." That's all I'm saying.

But the guy you are blasting is the best scorer of the lot both in volume (16 ppg) and efficiency (66% fg). I know you claim he isn't a "power" scorer, but neither are any of the other guys. That is what doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ron Cey]

Big Baby Davis is NBA caliber? Really? I think I've been generous to call him a top 15 prospect at this point. He certainly will be a lotto pick if he comes out after next year, but not now.

Actually, in the thread about Davis I said he was a "slightly better" Lonny Baxter. He doesn't really do it for me. I thought you were saying that Davis is the only guy Aldridge played in the Tourney who was comparable to NBA level. I must have misunderstood.

And honestly, what does playing poorly against Creighton or Drake say when he demolished Aaron Gray and held his own against Kansas and Memphis when the talent of the other four players on his team was drastically below the talent of the other four players on KU and Memphis?

It says he is inconsistent and capable of getting shut down by lesser talent. It also says he can be damn good.

AND, I realize that Aldridge may have lit Kansas up (didn't look), but the difference lies in the fact this his team is more talented 1-5 than Kansas, whereas O'Bryant's is not. If you watched his play against Memphis you'll realize that he more than held his own, his whole team was just out of whack because Memphis was more talented across the board.

Wally Sczerbiak's Miami of Ohio team sucked and he absolutely lit up the NCAA tournament. Talent is talent.

Also, by your logic, we should care about the fact that George Mason lost twice to Hofstra. Does what they didn't do against a crap team like Hofstra matter? Or does what they DID do against 4 NCAA tourney teams matter? I think only the latter matters. And, that applies to every team and prospect. I'm not going to fault any prospect for what they didn't do against a guy that will never play a game in the NBA.

Team does not = player. The Bulls aren't drafting teams, they are drafting individuals. And I think you are completely missing my point. I don't care that O'Bryant had these bad games. I still consider him a solid prospect. Just like I don't care that Aldridge had a bad shooting game against LSU. The occassional bad game - and I don't think Aldridge even had a "bad" game against LSU - does not phase me. It happens to almost every collegiate player.

But to say you won't fault a guy for sucking against inferior competition, but will hold it against him if he's off against a higher calibur of competition doesn't make any sense.

Its worse for Carl Lewis to lose a race to my mom than it is for him to lose a race to Ben Johnson. Losing the race to the latter means he can still be damn good. Losing to the former means he's slow.

 

[Ron Cey]

But to me Thomas doesn't have to pretend to be one. He's a pure four and I don't want power scoring from a pure four. Besides, with a power scorer like Big Baby Davis, how much is ANYONE playing next to Davis going to be asked to do that. O'Bryant to me is a better power scorer. O'Bryant also can be doubled way more easily than Aldridge because he is far more talented than the other players on his team. How much extra attention can you throw at Aldridge with players like Tucker, Gibson and Buckman out there with him?

This is all just an irrelevent red herring. Aldridge gets doubled all the time.

How many times have you actually seen Bradley even play basketball? I'm serious. I want to know the answer to that question. Because I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you don't have any idea how often O'Bryant gets doubled compared to Aldridge or how he handles it.

Aldridge's offense may have been higher on the whole, but, that's the point. When it came down to it, his offense went away when the game got physical. And it had nothing to do with something like O'Bryant's case where they just completely took the entry to Patrick away from Bradley because they had enough talent to deny and to get back on extra attention. The game got physical and he withered.

This is a gross overstatement of his performance. He didn't "wither". He had a poor shooting game. One game. He also had 10 boards, 2 steals, 2 assists, and 5 blocks. Those are terrific numbers. Those are not the numbers of a player who "withered".

The bottom line is he's a 66% field goal shooter.

Not to make this about you, but why don't you just say "I like Aldridge, end of story."

Um, because I don't have inflexible "end of story" opinions? I do like him, though, along with Thomas and Noah. Those are the 3 bigs that I like at the very top of the draft. I'd be happy with any of them. I've never seen Bargnani.

Can you really deny to me that if Aldridge had blown it up to the tune of 35 and 25, he wouldn't be getting a lot more pub for "one game" than he probably should?

Sure he would have. Just like Thomas is getting too much for his games.

It's one game according to his fans.

No. Its "one game" according to space, time, matter and the reality of human existence. Its an undeniable truth.

But had it been one Great game where he completely destroyed Davis, we'd be hearing a LOT from Aldridge fans. Way more than they want to hear from anyone else now that he was exposed.

I agree with all of that except for the "exposed" part. But how is fan over-reaction, negative or positive, conceivably relevant to whether or not he's a good draft prospect? Its not.

 

[Ron Cey]

Ron we'll never agree. You have your opinions, I have mine, neither one of us is changing our minds. Besides, I'm sick of having my opinions called things like irrelevant knowing I can't fire back. So let's just let it go. If you have anything else to say to me on this topic, you can PM me.

Come on, man. Saying a point is "irrelevant" in the scope of a debate is hardly the type of thing you should need to "fire back" at to continue an intelligent discussion.

For example, you can explain the relevance of the point. I'm not going to PM you basketball discussion that belongs on the board because you feel you can't hold your temper long enough to carry on a discussion with someone who is disagreeing with you.

For example, I asked you a pointed and simple question about Bradley. It should be simple to answer that question without needing to "fire back".

 

[Ron Cey]

"Show me the money."

Toronto better not try and draft him. He'd pull a Steve Francis on 'em. George ain't real fond of Tories.

 

[Ron Cey]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/content/sports/epaper/2006/03/29/a9c_ufnotes_0329.html

Blast. He's my favorite of the lot.

 

[Ron Cey]

Again, I don't think we should make too much of a bad game. Even for Thomas.

But I will restate what I said about Tyrus after he shelled Texas. I just don't think he's got a refined enough offensive game to help the Bulls. Aldridge has more size and more post scoring ability, and those are the two things we lack. As prospects, maybe they have equal upsides -- I'm not sure. But if they're in the ballpark, I want the player who's a better fit for us.

Give me Aldridge (or Roy, of course).

My order remains Noah, Aldridge and then Thomas. If the other two aren't there, then I think Thomas would be a fine pick. But I agree with you about his offensive game. Its putbacks and open court scoring. He may develop an all around offensive game, but he doesn't have one now.

Plus, he showed poor decision making last night, I thought. Though he is young in a pressure cooker game and UCLA's defense is remarkable. Still a very good potential draft pick.

 

[Ron Cey]

What all around offensive game does Noah have? He's got a lousy J and doesn't have the strength play much back-to-the-basket. Defenders aren't going to play him tight at 15 feet if he doesn't hit that J and so his driving game may be neutralized.

I didn't say Noah had an all around offensive game. I said that Thomas doesn't have one. Aldridge is the one who has the complete array on offense.

But Noah's is more polished than Thomas' game at this point. Plus, he's a better passer. Defensively and shot-blocking wise they are both excellent, though again I'd give the edge to Noah. My only other concern with Thomas is that some of his antics bother me to the point I worry a little about his attitude. But thats a totally subjective, unreliable aspect of the analysis. I don't let it affect how I rate them, but it is in the back of my mind.

Basically, Aldridge is the most ready. Then Noah, then Thomas. But balancing upside with impact, I like Noah the best. I've repeatedly said that I'd like any of the 3. In my "ranking", very little space separates them. I just hope they all declare.

 

[Ron Cey]

Charlie Rosen is an idiot. Just wanted to get that out there as a general statement.

After watching Noah last night, I'm even more convinced that he should be the draft target if he comes out. He's special.

And I'm not just talking about his incredible shot blocking ability and instincts. But his passing both from the post and in the open court are uncanny for a player his size. For crying out loud, he was rebounding the ball in traffic and then dribbling out of the congested paint like he was shot out of a cannon to lead the fast break.

I've seen a couple of Florida regular season games and every tournament game. He's awesome. And not just "looks good in a weak draft" type of awesome either. I mean "uniquely gifted and fiery" type of awesome.

I see two deficiencies mentioned that are fair and accurate - questionable jumper and frame. I don't care about either. His frame is meaningless. He plays strong. The jumper will or won't get better. But considering how absurdly rare the rest of his talents are for a 20 year old big man, it doesn't matter.

 

[Ron Cey]

Logically, he declares. But he's in a rather unique sitation since he's already rich.

But I guess the bottom line is what else is there for him? He won the national championship, won the MOP for the Final Four, and became a star in the process.

 

[Ron Cey]

Noah gets it. The only thing that gives the NBA an advantage over a big school like Florida is money. If you already have money you can't beat the college experience. The girls at Florida are just as hot as the groupies who are trying to trap a pro player by getting pregnant.

But are they as slutty?

 

[Ron Cey]

What if none of these guys declare for the draft? Has anyone considered it?

I suspect we've all considered it since the three bigs this thread is based on are sophomores in college.

But we have to discuss them as prospects. Otherwise these threads would be about James Augustine.

 

[Ron Cey]

Mike Wilbon from PTI wrote an article in the Washington Post today (need to register to read it). He thinks Joakim Noah is the no-brainer #1 pick in the draft. He even says that the Knicks will cry themselves to sleep if Noah is there and the Bulls snatch him with their pick from the Curry trade. Undoubtedly, Noah has vaulted himself into top 3 consideration. So has Tyrus Thomas. Funny that neither of these guys were being talked about before the season started. Regardless, it's a MUST that the Bulls get 1 of these guys.

I agree with Wilbon. I've been writing for awhile now in this thread that my order of preference is:

(1) Noah
(2) Aldridge
(3) Thomas

Last night solidified it - Noah is the "no brainer" for the Bulls in my book. Now all that needs to happen is that we get the #1 pick and he declares for the draft. :laugh: