LAKERS NEED A POINT GUARD
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Trade and Free Agency Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
activeverb
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:03 am    Post subject:

Smush is a solid, run-of-the-mill point guard. My guess is we won't be making be making any trades this year and we will resign him.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scoobs
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:05 am    Post subject:

LuxuryBrown wrote:
scoobs wrote:
How many points do you think Smush would average in a non-triangle system? I would guess around 6, with little playing time. The triangle is actually a plus, when you are a jump shooting point guard. See: Fisher, Hunter, Kerr, Armstrong, Smush!


What does that have to do with anything? Seriosuly. What sense does that make since he IS playing in the triangle? This isn't about "How many points would Smush average in another system", this is about "Smush averages 11 in the tiangle"...the only system the Lakers are running. When they change systems, THEN that can be addressed but until then, it serves no purpose to even address it.

Mike James' role would change because of the triangle, not the other way around. Players adjust to Phil...not the opposite. James' average wouldn't jump by 5 points just because he plays in the tri.

Also, you never answered what defensive abilities he brings?
Smush, is that you?Mike James is highly regarded as a good defender around the NBA. Every scouting report I have seen of his, states that he is a good shooter and a good defender. Check Hoopshype.com. He is not the quick defender that guys like Boykins and Lue are, but he is more in the strong defender mold, like a poor man's Chancy Billups defensively. I think he would at the minimum, contribute to our squad on the defensive end. If he averages 11 points like Smush, and allows 3 less points per game on the defensive end, I would consider that an up-grade. Dont get me wrong, I like Smush, but adding James would give us an added dimension in our back court.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LuxuryBrown
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 17429
Location: Mackadocious, Ca.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:13 am    Post subject:

scoobs wrote:
LuxuryBrown wrote:
scoobs wrote:
How many points do you think Smush would average in a non-triangle system? I would guess around 6, with little playing time. The triangle is actually a plus, when you are a jump shooting point guard. See: Fisher, Hunter, Kerr, Armstrong, Smush!


What does that have to do with anything? Seriosuly. What sense does that make since he IS playing in the triangle? This isn't about "How many points would Smush average in another system", this is about "Smush averages 11 in the tiangle"...the only system the Lakers are running. When they change systems, THEN that can be addressed but until then, it serves no purpose to even address it.

Mike James' role would change because of the triangle, not the other way around. Players adjust to Phil...not the opposite. James' average wouldn't jump by 5 points just because he plays in the tri.

Also, you never answered what defensive abilities he brings?
Smush, is that you?Mike James is highly regarded as a good defender around the NBA. Every scouting report I have seen of his, states that he is a good shooter and a good defender. Check Hoopshype.com. He is not the quick defender that guys like Boykins and Lue are, but he is more in the strong defender mold, like a poor man's Chancy Billups defensively. I think he would at the minimum, contribute to our squad on the defensive end. If he averages 11 points like Smush, and allows 3 less points per game on the defensive end, I would consider that an up-grade. Dont get me wrong, I like Smush, but adding James would give us an added dimension in our back court.


Nope, I'm not Smush. Just a LAKER fan that fairly supports its players. Try it sometime. As for scouting reports, they're just that "reports"...I choose to see things with my own eyes and I've yet to see Mike James hold down the opposing PG, especially to where I'd be "Yeah! THAT'S the answer to the ALL the Lakers problems! Mike James!"
_________________
Quote:
Smooth, but I move like an army / Bulletproof down in case brothas try to bomb me / Puttin' brothas to rest like Elliot Ness / Cuz I don't like stress
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RG73
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2001
Posts: 11508

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:20 am    Post subject: Re: LAKERS NEED A POINT GUARD

lakersboxershorts wrote:
Smush is our starting point guard,


Nominally, not functionally.

Quote:
as exciting as he is,


He is?

Quote:
he's not much of a play maker or a passer. (let alone a lock down defender)


And you're just coming around to this very original observation now?

Quote:
Smush makes a great spark off the bench, with his energy, and dunking ability. Agree?


No. We haven't seen him come off the bench so we don't know if he'd bring energy. He's often lacking energy as a starter, so why would he have energy off the bench?

Quote:
However, after his performance in last year's playoffs, or should i say LACK of performance, I am skeptical about his ability to play at a high level.


Again, you're like 7 months after the fact on this observation.

Quote:
Smush is a starting point guard who has Kobe on his team but can't get more than 1 or 2 assists a game. That's bad.


Why is that bad? Smush is by design supposed to shoot the ball when he receives it more often than not. He isn't the initiator/facilitator/organizing guard in the offense usually--hence, he's not going to rack up assists. And to the best of my knowledge no one has ever averaged more than about 7 assists per game in the tri. Given that the guy who is the de facto point guard right now (e.g. Kobe) only averages 5.4 assists, and Smush is at about 2.4, I'd say that makes sense.

Then again, I don't even know why this is a problem on a team that is among the best in the league in assists per game. A team that is averaging just under 105ppg, shooting just under 48% from the field and averaging over 23 assists per game doesn't really have a problem with passing.

Quote:
I look at the box score after the game some nights, Smush has zero assists.


I've looked at the box score after some games and Kobe has 1 or 0 assists. And?

Quote:
The fact of the matter is, we need a Ron Harper, big guard, 6'6, ala Brian Shaw... to be a point guard for this team.


Smush is a big guard, and certainly has a bigger wingspan than either Harper or Shaw. Of course, I'm not sure that we need a big guard. The Bulls did win 3 championships with B.J. Armstrong as their starting point.

Quote:
Smush is not cutting it IMO.


Well this might be a valid point, but not for any of the reasons you've stated.

Quote:
Farmer, while more of a traditional PG, had stretches of brilliance, but is still 2-3 years away from being starting material.


More like 1-2 years, but true, not ready to start yet.

Quote:
It's hard for me to believe Smush would be starting material on any other NBA team.


Maybe not, but that is irrelevant isn't it? He's one of 2 starting guards here, and, at the moment, there isn't anyone better suited to the roll. Even if we all agreed he was a terrible, terrible guard, and ill suited for the team, again, its a lot of pissing and moaning to no avail.

There would have to be another better point guard available via trade for what the Lakers have to offer who Phil would start despite them not knowing the offense. Seeing as no such players exist, Smush's relative suckiness is something we're stuck with. Barring Nash or Billups or Kidd being waived and signing for the vet minimum, there is simply no guard who is skilled enough for Phil to play them despite their being unfamiliar with the offense. So even if a trade for a 2nd tier point guard could be pulled off, it is unlikely Phil would play them over Smush anyway because they wouldn't know what they're doing on the floor and their raw talent wouldn't be enough to make up for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
postandpivot
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 16 Sep 2003
Posts: 36822

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:27 am    Post subject:

SteveMachine wrote:
Charlie Bell or Earl Watson


you guys are funny. neither one of these guys are GREAT PG guards.

and for the 100th time. stop talking about a triangle PG being some kind of Jkidd playmaker. thats not how the offense works. get that, understand that. then move on. stop talking about defense at the PG position when we're getting beat by the PickNroll. which needs to be addressed as a TEAM. not at the PG position. everyone else has to cover for anyone getting picked off. thats common BBALL knowledge. COMMON.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Socks
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 10761
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:34 am    Post subject:

James is being highly over-rated here.

All the fears teams had about signing him this past off-season are coming to bear. He had a great year last year in a contract year for a horrible team. This year he looks like the player he has been throughout his career - a journeyman. He's also 32 years old and now has a contract that I wouldn't want and this team can't afford. And I don't care what anyone has read. If you watch him this year, he's definitely not a great defender. Not horrible, but like people here have been saying, the rules make it hard to stop anyone on the perimeter these days. He's not much better than Smush on D, and defintely not at the price tag he comes with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scoobs
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:34 am    Post subject:

Another idea: John Salmons

6-6 207

High Basketball I.Q.

Versatile

Good Defense

Decent Shooter

Sac needs shooting, maybe we could swap Vlad Rad for Salmons?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mark_in_Tulsa
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 12975

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:29 pm    Post subject:

scoobs wrote:
Another idea: John Salmons

6-6 207

High Basketball I.Q.

Versatile

Good Defense

Decent Shooter

Sac needs shooting, maybe we could swap Vlad Rad for Salmons?


Would be nice, but Sac is breeding him to take over for Bibby when he leaves next year.
_________________
Think about how stupid the avg. person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

---George Carlin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Socks
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 01 Feb 2006
Posts: 10761
Location: Bay Area, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:37 pm    Post subject:

^^^ I dunno about that - Salmons isn't really a PG. Ideally, I'd see him as a great combo guy off the bench who can play some PG, SG, and even a little SF.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scoobs
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:42 pm    Post subject:

Socks wrote:
^^^ I dunno about that - Salmons isn't really a PG. Ideally, I'd see him as a great combo guy off the bench who can play some PG, SG, and even a little SF.
He isn't realy a PG, but he would be a good triangle PG. (Ron Harper)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
scoobs
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 4746

PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:44 pm    Post subject:

Socks wrote:
^^^ I dunno about that - Salmons isn't really a PG. Ideally, I'd see him as a great combo guy off the bench who can play some PG, SG, and even a little SF.
I dont think he is starting point guard material on the Kings, I would think they need more a play maker. He would just be a solid orgnizational/ defensive point guard/ back-up shooting guard for us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Trade and Free Agency Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB