Aldridge is already featured plenty in that offense. He's the 2nd option. Landry's already outproducing him off the bench.
+1... LA would average 25-28 points a game on our current team imo... I think Landry could be better than David West.
LA got his number against other team's starting PF, CL got his by playing against other team's backups.
I would say No... B/c of how they are physically built....Aldridge has much better size, standing at 6'11 with 7'5 wingspan and a 9'2 standing reach compared to Landry who is 6'8.5(in shoes) with a 6'11 wingspan, 8'6.5 standing reach....which makes it more difficult to challenge shots at the basket....essentially Landry is a power forward in a small forward body....I think a much better comparison for Landry would be Kenyon Martin than LaMarcus Aldridge, given their similar built and explosiveness..... -rocketblaze
I love Aldridge and would take him any day but I'll tell you one thing that Landry does supremely better than Aldridge right now and that's getting up there and fighting for rebounds.
I agree with every word you just said and it would all be relavant.... if landry was 4 inches taller he would be far better than Aldridge. but he's not 4 inches taller. Unfortunately.
Landry's already better around the basket. I'm always surprised by how LMA avoids the paint so much. With his height and his touch, he'd be a b**** of a matchup problem if he'd learn to deal with contact better.
Yes that is something Landry has over Aldridge......is his aggressive play, and constant attacking the rim meanwhile, Aldridge has a tendency to fall in love with his jump shot instead of attacking the rim.....
If a team were to build around Aldridge, they better have a damn good rebounding center that don't care about scoring (e.g. Pryzbilla, Noah, Haywood, etc)
I would like to add that a developing Oden and Aldridge can complement each other very well. Greg can rebound and if his defense comes around along with a decrease in his foul rate,they can provide a strong low-high post combo.
yeah he does but his game is more aggressive therefore he doesnt take as many midrange jumpers. But saying his jumper is inconsistent is off. He rarely misses 10-15 ft jumpers.
Agreed LA has a much higher ceiling then any of our PFs...although if Landry keeps it up I could see him being a better version of David West.
Aldridge is a completely different player than Landry. I can think of several situations where I'd prefer Landry over Aldridge and several where I'd want Aldridge. In the post? In traffic? Against Tim Duncan? Give me Landry every time. This black and white question should have more colorful choices.
I don't think landry and aldrige are comparable, jason thompson is more comparbale to aldrige both 6'11 low post game, mid range game and can shoot over the top of there defenders, while landry is more comparable to milsap both 6'8 great finishers, can face up for the mid jumper or attack the basket and post.
Man, Aldridge is an "honest" 6'11" and Carl is a dishonest 6'9" on NBA.com. (Clutch, who has more sense, lists Landry at 6'8". That's even being generous. If he's 6'8" without shoes, I'll eat one of the hats I own to cover my bald head!) Things being close to even, and I'd say they are, you go with the guy about 4 inches taller, almost every time in this league. And I'm a fan of Mr. Landry, who's part of the best PF tandem in the NBA, IMO. So no, I don't think he can be better, not in the long run. As much as I love Carl, I'd trade him for Aldridge in a New York minute.
the answer is definitly no. compared with aldridge,carl is shorter,and don't possess aldridge's tremendous physical advantage.so besides consistent mid-range shooting,carl is more aggressive to attack the paint area.while aldridge is more relied on his talent of jumping ,whatever he is kind of soft .IMO.but we need to admit that he is far excellent than carl currently. and I don;t see the possibility for carl to develop into aldridge's playing level only because of the innate physical disadvantage.
