Best way to look at it, tbh. Had this been a decade ago, I think an Aldridge-led team would have had a higher ceiling when there were still lots of bigs in the league. Aldridge is a very solid #2 on a contender today.
Completely agree. I still think he has some cache for a trade with New Orleans. After all, on-court effectiveness is of paramount importance, but putting butts in seats is also the name of the game. LMA has much more ability and cache than anything the Pels are likely to get from another team. Lonzo ain't filling any arenas. Or Ingram. Or Kuzma.
why didn't you post this in your own thread?
that is true, but you can be a contender when he's your 2nd option, which was the original case when he came here
Whenever he was relegated to 2nd option his production dropped.
Because this conversation started organically here.
Also, I have said that same thing, in different ways, many times on that thread.
Duuhhhh how many bigs in today's NBA could be the offensive focal point of a serious contender?
Yeah well, then why do so many idiots keep trying to dispute that point?
So your whole point isn't about Aldridge but about tdays's NBA?
I don't believe anyone has claimed Aldridge could lead a team to a championship, but he absolutely can be a co-star or 2nd best player on a championship team in a universe where Warriors don't exist.
It's a bit of both. He definitely isn't a 1st option for today's NBA, but I'm also not sure he has what it takes to be a championship contending 1st option in the 90's.So your whole point isn't about Aldridge but about t
The problem whit that logic is that Aldridge never showed he can be a reliable option when je isn't getting 1st option touches. He disengages amd just goes through the motions playing insipid basketball.I don't believe anyone has claimed Aldridge could lead a team to a championship, but he absolutely can be a co-star or 2nd best player on a championship team in a universe where Warriors don't exist.
Many, many, many times.
Joel, Jokic and Giannis, all can be champions with Dray, Klay and Iguodala as support, add one of Durant or Curry is they would win easily
Yeah, just like you repeat points and arguments and questions many, many, many, many, many, many times.
Not upstairs tbh. Would get boring.
I'd wait for them to win more than 1 playoff series between them to claim this.
Not really a big in that sense - he's a perimeter player/slasher.
No way either of them with Dray, Klay and Iggy beats the current Warriors.
Sure, because there is a difference between doing it here to doing it on the Club or Political forum.
Also, you do it here too, tbh. Just go find that Aldridge thread and look for all those times where you get into arguments and you feel the need to have the last word because, if you don't, you feel like you lose the argument, so you keep repeating the same things over and over again.
The one exchange I had with you?Sure, because there is a difference between doing it here to doing it on the Club or Political forum.
Also, you do it here too, tbh. Just go find that Aldridge thread and look for all those times where you get into arguments and you feel the need to have the last word because, if you don't, you feel like you lose the argument, so you keep repeating the same things over and over again.
Nah, the same exchange you have with anyone that doesn't suckup to PATFO's everymove.The one exchange I had with you?
I'm sure they have the talent to do it, but anyway, this is your opinion and I can respect (these guys are real superstars wise impact)
in fact, in Milwaukee, Brook plays more like a spot shooter in most of the offensive plays and Giannis is the guy who fights for rebounds and finishes the plays inside, so even though he is not a positional center, he practically plays as one in the Bucks system.
sure (although this message was more about gsw core pre Durant), but if you put one of the Curry or Durant in the team you have a real challenge for gsw
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote