The "Enforcer" type players are disappearing in a league known for passing out flagrant fouls to six foot guards who slap a dude with one mitt. Those old skool players like Thorpe are a thing of the past.
Its neither. He's played, what, 40 minutes total? He's not going to average a double-double the rest of the way.
Thorpe, as I remember him play, got his points mostly from point blank range. He was a garbage man, scoring off lots of put backs and interior dump passes. And when he got the ball under the basket, nobody could stop him because he was so strong. He just grabbed the ball with one hand and stuffed it. He rarely shot from outside of 10 ft. Patterson, on the other hand, can shoot from the 3 pt line. If Patterson has the same roughness inside, together with his range, he can be a better all around player than Thorpe. But that remains to be seen.
man 1 good game and we r on this dudes nuts hard! lol...next thread... PP HAS A HORRILBE GAME.... trade him get r done morey! lol gotta love clutchfans! :grin:
Ok. I'll be satisfied if he can average double digit anything over the next 5 games. Ecspecially with the type of competition. Then i'll know that we are on to something. Let's say he goes three straight games like the last one, i'd say we had our new and improved Chuck Hayes.
I sometimes mistake what "ceiling" is supposed to mean. Ceiling is the absolute best that a player could be, right? Not just how good we think they will probably end up being, but the place they could be if everything lines up just right. In that case, I say "starter on a winning team". I voted wrong, though.
For one thing, even doing this for three straight games is unlikely. It's not even that I don't think he's that good, but it's just not very plausible for a guy who's just starting to make his way into the rotation. All of the best pfs we've had recently had a longer road than that (Scola, Hayes, Landry), and I doubt Pat will progress faster than ALL of those guys were able to, even if he somehow turns out to be better than all of them. For another thing, Chuck Hayes' main selling point is his D, not offense or even rebounding (although he is a good rebounder for his size). So Pat is a very different player. Not really a valid metaphor to say he's a "new and improved" Chuck, no matter how good he is.
Solid back-up on a winning team is what I voted for. I really do hope he'll prove me wrong, because I think he's a really cool guy from what i've seen!
Anybody think Hakeem can teach Patterson some moves like he did with Kobe, last summer? Patterson seems to be smart enough to pick up the footwork and fast enough to use it.
Doubtful. I am always skeptical about the ability of great players/physicists/etc to teach. Hakeem was awesome and there are things about his game that he probably takes for granted such as his agility. Kobe has a lot of agility so it isn't a big deal for him to learn from Hakeem. People with limited abilities that make the most out of them are usually the better the teachers for the mass majority of people. PS. I could be completely wrong as I have no knowledge of Hakeem's teaching skills. I just don't think PatPat will be able to play like Hakeem.
A shane Battier mold of a powerforward with a little more assertiveness offensively. Excellent teammate, defensive understanding with about 15-18ppg and like 9rpg. Millsap/Starting Landry production but with very good team defense.
