steve blake vs luke ridnour
I have no idea if the lakers or Luke were interested in each other but I think Ridnour would have been a way better fit for the lakers then blake, both are about the same age and got the exact same 4yr $16million deals but I think Ridnour would thrive playing with Kobe because of his tight rope dimes and handles, he woulda been an excellent back up PG imo , compared to blake whos a combo guard, Let me know what you think the Lakers should have done even if its another player, but these guys got the exact same deal and theirs limit ed PG's in that price range.
I disagree. From all PGs from the FA Blake fits best. He's a good shooter and that's what you need in the triangle offense. You don't need the classic PG, you need a shooter, who doesn't turn the ball over too often.
ridnour is a better player then blake in my book hands down. Blake fits the trinagle better then ridnour though. Dribbiling and creating off the bounce is not something allowed much from a pg in the triangle offense.
Blake can play defense and he is point guard that makes few mistakes. Ridnour can score and shoot and in the past has been turnover prone and is not that great of a defender.
I think they offer two different things and it is all on team's need. I like Blake for defense and Ridnour for offense.
The only thing Ridnour does better than Blake is make some flashy passes. Blake is capable of getting the ball to open shooters, and knocking down open shots himself. He plays better D than Ridnour and has no problem letting someone else control the ball, where as Ridnour is more of a typical PG who is better with the ball in his possession...
i also disagree . blake is a much better fit for the lakers. if blakes a combo then luke is also a combo. he split time between the pg and sg position when out there with jennings. both are pretty good at getting players the ball in scoring position but the thing that separates the two is the other side of the ball(defense) which blake has a clear advantage. plus hes a lil taller and longer
anyone else read the article on the front page of this site about 10 biggest surprises of the free agent period? The writer says steve blake was a terribls signing and that the lakers should have gone with a big man this summer. I disagree completley. Why spend your money on a guy who is only gonna be valuable IF an injury occurs. MIght as well use minimum salary on a big who is just a insurance policy. But fishers no longer capable of playing 30 minutes a night and they had to bring someone in. 4 mill per is hardly overpaid for blake.
i agree. why go after a big man when most of the minutes will go to bynum,odom,gasol and now caracter?..you can pick up a 5th big man for pretty cheap who can play 5-10 min every couple of games. hell thats mbenga. the blake signing was way bigger then it seemed because everyone knows he helps with our biggest weakness. actually with 2 because he can be a very good back up or good starter as well as make our bench better