Landry is a 3

Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
He's not an upper tier power forward and never will be. Doesn't have the length, can't rebound well enough. Gets his shots blocked too often in the paint. Can't help defend well enough to be upper tier 4. Now, if he extends his shooting zone out about three or four feet, which is definitely possible, then you have a three who can also post up. He looks like he's quick enough to defend most threes in the league, and if he can't guard some of them I'd rather have him not guard guys who shoot outside shots, not be exposed at the rim. He's either a great sub at the 4 when he can go against lesser 4s, or he's a three. The only way it can work at the 4 long term is if you have Dwight Howard back there to clean up after him on defense.
 
Kingster said:
He's not an upper tier power forward and never will be. Doesn't have the length, can't rebound well enough. Gets his shots blocked too often in the paint. Can't help defend well enough to be upper tier 4. Now, if he extends his shooting zone out about three or four feet, which is definitely possible, then you have a three who can also post up. He looks like he's quick enough to defend most threes in the league, and if he can't guard some of them I'd rather have him not guard guys who shoot outside shots, not be exposed at the rim. He's either a great sub at the 4 when he can go against lesser 4s, or he's a three. The only way it can work at the 4 long term is if you have Dwight Howard back there to clean up after him on defense.
Click to expand...

He is a 4, but is a 6th man. We will get a true PF and Landry will beast off the bench. Don't get it wrong though he is our current 2nd best player.
 
I think he is a combo forward (if you can say that about a player) and it makes him a great 6th man. He will never be great at either position (SF or PF) because of his limitations (speed or size) but he is still very useful and IMO is the best PF we have now and most likely will have next year.
 
Kingster said:
And how many points and rebounds did they have against him?
Click to expand...
You can't just determine what position a player plays based on their size. It's mostly on how they play, what do they do on the court. Landry likes the paint and likes to shoot those little jumpshots. It's clear he is a PF, but he is undersized, which is why he should be coming off the bench, but right now he's all we got, and its not like he is bad at his job (I like him personally seems like someone you can rely on to finish plays).
 
Hahaha, he's a PF, no doubts about it. Just because he's a poor rebounder doesn't mean he's not. He's actually surprised me with his ability in the post, much better than Corliss ever was just simply because of his athletic ability and lift. Landry can hang with the bigger bodies most nights.
 
He's a 4, whether he will come off the bench is yet to be determined. If we can get a C that covers his weaknesses, I think he can start. If not, he can be a 6th man of the year type player.
 
vikinginferno said:
He's a 4, whether he will come off the bench is yet to be determined. If we can get a C that covers his weaknesses, I think he can start. If not, he can be a 6th man of the year type player.
Click to expand...

He probably would have won were it not for the trade.
 
Question: has the OP ever watched him play with the rockets? Don't tell me he isn't a PF. He just doesn't have anybody alongside him on the frontline to help him out.

Ever heard of Al Jefferson? That dude is arguably the best post scorer in the league today when he's 100% healthy. You put anybody on an island against him, and he's going to put up numbers.
 
Showtime said:
Question: has the OP ever watched him play with the rockets? Don't tell me he isn't a PF. He just doesn't have anybody alongside him on the frontline to help him out.

Ever heard of Al Jefferson? That dude is arguably the best post scorer in the league today when he's 100% healthy. You put anybody on an island against him, and he's going to put up numbers.
Click to expand...

Exactly, pretty much everybody scores on everybody in the NBA the key is to give as good as you get:)

But Landry a 3?Nope. Not even in the realm of Landrys game. He is a 4 who lives in the post, knows how to finish there and even has little trouble getting his buckets around all the length that he encounters down there. He was and still is the best 'big' the Rockets have not counting Yao Ming.

People hang onto the size thing wayy too much, not making a comparison but do people forget Charles Barkley's height? He was like 6'7(Maybe shorter) and is arguably a top 5 PF of all time. If this team found a center that would grab boards and rebound, nobody would have a problem with Landry at all as our starting 4.

But as of right now I do think his best fit is as our sixth man, he is our without a doubt 2nd best player though.
 
Kingster said:
He's not an upper tier power forward and never will be. Doesn't have the length, can't rebound well enough. Gets his shots blocked too often in the paint. Can't help defend well enough to be upper tier 4. Now, if he extends his shooting zone out about three or four feet, which is definitely possible, then you have a three who can also post up. He looks like he's quick enough to defend most threes in the league, and if he can't guard some of them I'd rather have him not guard guys who shoot outside shots, not be exposed at the rim. He's either a great sub at the 4 when he can go against lesser 4s, or he's a three. The only way it can work at the 4 long term is if you have Dwight Howard back there to clean up after him on defense.
Click to expand...

So anyone not an upper tier ___ position automatically has to be at another position? Ask yourself, if Landry were 6'10 instead of 6'7, would you have made this thread?

Landry is a poor man's David West. Their games are eerily similar. Last time I checked, West was a 4.
 
Kingstime said:
People hang onto the size thing wayy too much, not making a comparison but do people forget Charles Barkley's height? He was like 6'7(Maybe shorter) and is arguably a top 5 PF of all time. If this team found a center that would grab boards and rebound, nobody would have a problem with Landry at all as our starting 4.
Click to expand...

Barkley was a monster on the boards, though. And not just for his listed 6'6" height. He actually averaged nearly 15 rebounds a game one year.

It's not about Carl's height. I would agree that he's a power forward, not a small forward, but he rebounds like a small forward (compare his rpg to Peja's), and he's not a considerable shot-blocking threat. We need a frontline that can rebound and block shots, and Carl needs to come off the bench. We can't be a contender with him starting, not unless we have a monster at center.
 
rhythmless said:
Landry is a poor man's David West. Their games are eerily similar. Last time I checked, West was a 4.
Click to expand...

The only thing West does better than Landry is rebound, and that's not by a whole lot. I think Landry is better around the rim, and has more range.
 
Kingster said:
He's not an upper tier power forward and never will be. Doesn't have the length, can't rebound well enough. Gets his shots blocked too often in the paint. Can't help defend well enough to be upper tier 4. Now, if he extends his shooting zone out about three or four feet, which is definitely possible, then you have a three who can also post up. He looks like he's quick enough to defend most threes in the league, and if he can't guard some of them I'd rather have him not guard guys who shoot outside shots, not be exposed at the rim. He's either a great sub at the 4 when he can go against lesser 4s, or he's a three. The only way it can work at the 4 long term is if you have Dwight Howard back there to clean up after him on defense.
Click to expand...
I suggest changing the title of this thread to WE SHOULD TRY TEACHING LANDRY TO PLAY THE 3. I think you are right that he might be quick enough to be able to defend most threes in the league.
 
Superman said:
Barkley was a monster on the boards, though. And not just for his listed 6'6" height. He actually averaged nearly 15 rebounds a game one year.

It's not about Carl's height. I would agree that he's a power forward, not a small forward, but he rebounds like a small forward (compare his rpg to Peja's), and he's not a considerable shot-blocking threat. We need a frontline that can rebound and block shots, and Carl needs to come off the bench. We can't be a contender with him starting, not unless we have a monster at center.
Click to expand...


I think everyone tends to forget how great Barkley was. (His partaking in one too many chalupas probably has something to do with it.)
 
theclash4u5 said:
He had 22 pts and 7 rebounds tonight against Love, Jefferson and Milicic...
Click to expand...

He did have problems guarding Jefferson, and Milicic, the few times he got caught in a switch. To be fair, Jefferson is a hard guard for anyone. But there's no denying that he suffers a size disavantage against certain PF's in the league. Fortunately for Landry he does have his outside shot to fall back on, because he wasn't getting squat inside last night.
 
rhythmless said:
So anyone not an upper tier ___ position automatically has to be at another position? Ask yourself, if Landry were 6'10 instead of 6'7, would you have made this thread?

Landry is a poor man's David West. Their games are eerily similar. Last time I checked, West was a 4.
Click to expand...

Good analogy. He's always reminded me of west.
 
Superman said:
The only thing West does better than Landry is rebound, and that's not by a whole lot. I think Landry is better around the rim, and has more range.
Click to expand...

Considering that West is 6' 8.25" in his bare feet, and has a 7' 4.25" wingspan, vrs Landry who is 6' 7.75" in his bare feet and has a 6' 8" wingspan, I would think that West would have an advantage in the rebounding dept. Landry is closer in size to Milsap, who he's a little taller than, but even Milsap has a bigger wingspan and better standing reach.

I like Landry and I think he's a very good basketball player, but doubt he'll ever be an all star. And to be honest, we don't need him to be as long as he's surrounded by the right players.
 
If there's one thing that's known about rebounding it's that it all comes down to how hungry you are, how physical you are, and how skilled you are about doing it. West has a longer wingspan but there is no question that Landry is a better athlete. It's not just about length if it were someone like Jon Brockman wouldn't be one of the best rebounders per minute in the entire league. Landry for whatever reason just isn't a good rebounder. He was much better his first two years but still not off the charts.

Still, he was brought here to be a 2nd option on offense and from what I've seen thusfar he's more than capable of handling those duties. I really hope he and Tyreke get some serious chemistry going as Westphal had alluded to himself before last nights game.
 
bajaden said:
Considering that West is 6' 8.25" in his bare feet, and has a 7' 4.25" wingspan, vrs Landry who is 6' 7.75" in his bare feet and has a 6' 8" wingspan, I would think that West would have an advantage in the rebounding dept. Landry is closer in size to Milsap, who he's a little taller than, but even Milsap has a bigger wingspan and better standing reach.

I like Landry and I think he's a very good basketball player, but doubt he'll ever be an all star. And to be honest, we don't need him to be as long as he's surrounded by the right players.
Click to expand...


I totally agree and I think with him at PF it opens this team up to get a board muncher/shotblocker next to him since we have two guys in he and Reke that don't need help to get their points.
 
Based on how he plays, Landry is a PF. Based on his height (and with your head otherwise in the sand), he's a SF. Regardless, he's a pretty good player. Yes, he's undersized against some PFs. That weakness wouldn't be such an issue if we had a quality defensively-skilled Center, or if Landry were coming off the bench as he did in Houston. If the three big guys who are going to get the minutes are Hawes, Thompson and Landry, then we'll suck, and Landry's weakness will be exploited on some nights. Er, unless Hawes and Thompson make great strides next year. But, at this point, me thinks they are who they are, more or less. Landry, however, seems to have what it takes to keep getting better. I don't think it's unreasonable to think he can give us 20 and 8 next year as our starting PF. But if he ever becomes a 10 rebound/game PF, I'll be shocked.
 
Why does everyone want to compare every short PF to Barkley or Rodman? Those are once in a lifetime guys. It's like comparing every 6'5 shooting guard to Jordan.

Landry is who he is. A nice scoring, low rebounding, above average post player who will never be able to overcome his height the way Barkley did. Landry is above average for the rest of the 6'7 PF's out there but below average when compared to the taller ones. Some guys can rebound despite their height and some guys just cant. There's a reason why 99.9% of players can't be Rodman, Barkley and Kidd on the boards. Just be glad he doesn't rebound like Hawes (height to reb/gm speaking).
 
rhythmless said:
So anyone not an upper tier ___ position automatically has to be at another position? Ask yourself, if Landry were 6'10 instead of 6'7, would you have made this thread?

Landry is a poor man's David West. Their games are eerily similar. Last time I checked, West was a 4.
Click to expand...

I think the only reason we see him as a 4 is that he can score in the post with his back to the basket. That doesn't preclude him from playing the 3. Maybe he's a swing man.
 
Kingster said:
I think the only reason we see him as a 4 is that he can score in the post with his back to the basket. That doesn't preclude him from playing the 3. Maybe he's a swing man.
Click to expand...

Its kind of similar to the SAR situation in a lot of ways -- do you define him by what he HAS, or what he DOESN'T have. Now if you are defining Landry by what he doesn't do, well then he doesn't board, he doesn't block shots...hey, maybe he's a SF. But the fact is he really wouldn't excel at that spot because he doesn't actually have any SF skills besides the ability to hit midrange jumpers. Not a SF ballhandling wise, bad passer even for a PF, range isn't out to three, nor would I want it to be. He's really more a flawed PF than a SF, although he did play SF in certian matchups in Houston.

He's potent enough offensively that as a bench PF he could give you a real offensive kick in the pants off the bench boost -- what he was doing in Houston. His numbers are slightly up in Sacto -- 18.0pts 6.6reb compared to 16.1pts 5.5reb in Houston -- but its taking him more than 10 extra minutes to get those extra 1.9pts and 1.1reb. Basically he was almsot as productive in 27.2min in Houston as he has been in 37.4min here. Its not his best position that is really in question, but rather his best role given his relatively one dimensional, but very punchy game. PF next to Dwight Howard? Sure. PF off the bench to give offensive spark? Sure. Starting PF next to young bigs with all kinds of defensive and rebounding issues? Not so much.
 
Did SAR ever play SF in his career for an extended period?

Also, do any of you see our bigs benefiting from SAR as coach in any way, perhaps developing a post move? I think JT has gotten slightly better at his spin move floater thing but that's about it. How good was SAR at his best anyway? He was a little before my time..
 
mac said:
Did SAR ever play SF in his career for an extended period?

Also, do any of you see our bigs benefiting from SAR as coach in any way, perhaps developing a post move? I think JT has gotten slightly better at his spin move floater thing but that's about it. How good was SAR at his best anyway? He was a little before my time..
Click to expand...

SAR did his first couple of years -- and I thought they were his best years. But he got older and slower and never did have any of those other SF skills -- passing, ball handling etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top