View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
LakerSanity Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
You want a fun lineup?
PG - Lin
SG - Clarkson
SF - Kobe
PF - Randle
C - Kelly _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Twitter: @DeleteThisPost |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kaoss128 Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 13058 Location: Morgantown, WV
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Horrendous idea. Randle is a 4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kaoss128 Franchise Player
Joined: 09 Apr 2006 Posts: 13058 Location: Morgantown, WV
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box and trying Randle at the 3.
Personally, I don't think I've ever seen Randle shoot an outside jumper at least in the summer league or college highlights...Just because he doesn't shoot them doesn't mean he can't make them.
I've only seen like one video of him in high school shooting a bunch of outside shots and making them....I know, everyone looks good in highlight videos!
Based on the video of him shooting outside, his form looks smooth so I wouldn't doubt that he could make them or learn to make them consistently. |
The question for me, is it useful to take him further away from the hoop? I think he can be a foul drawing machine in the NBA closer to the rim. But put him 15-20 feet out, not so much. |
If they are serious about James Worthy working with him, Worthy would be the perfect player for JR to emulate.
Maybe JR could be a unique combination of Worthy, Lamar and Zach Randolph... |
Worthy would be awesome. But he also played in a league where pseudo-zones were not allowed and his lack of top-flight range on his shot wasn't as exploited. Granted, Worthy could hit that 15 footer but today's top level SFs have at least a 3 point shot. Randle hasn't shown that yet. |
Yep. Worthy would never make it in today's NBA at small forward. He would strictly be a power forward. The defenses are too complex and advance for a team to get away with him at the 3. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
kaoss128 wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | yinoma2001 wrote: | Lakerpark wrote: | I'm all in favor of thinking outside the box and trying Randle at the 3.
Personally, I don't think I've ever seen Randle shoot an outside jumper at least in the summer league or college highlights...Just because he doesn't shoot them doesn't mean he can't make them.
I've only seen like one video of him in high school shooting a bunch of outside shots and making them....I know, everyone looks good in highlight videos!
Based on the video of him shooting outside, his form looks smooth so I wouldn't doubt that he could make them or learn to make them consistently. |
The question for me, is it useful to take him further away from the hoop? I think he can be a foul drawing machine in the NBA closer to the rim. But put him 15-20 feet out, not so much. |
If they are serious about James Worthy working with him, Worthy would be the perfect player for JR to emulate.
Maybe JR could be a unique combination of Worthy, Lamar and Zach Randolph... |
Worthy would be awesome. But he also played in a league where pseudo-zones were not allowed and his lack of top-flight range on his shot wasn't as exploited. Granted, Worthy could hit that 15 footer but today's top level SFs have at least a 3 point shot. Randle hasn't shown that yet. |
Yep. Worthy would never make it in today's NBA at small forward. He would strictly be a power forward. The defenses are too complex and advance for a team to get away with him at the 3. |
Yeah. Worthy is one of my favorite players after Magic. He'd be a PF and still kill it.
I hope to see Randle dominating the PF position for the Lakers for a LONG time. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_2000 Star Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 8333 Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
oldschool32 wrote: | Makaala4 wrote: | I'm ALL IN for a Randall at SF and Ryan Kelly at PF...we need some youth in this aging lineup. Randall age 20, Kelly age 23. I was kind of bummed when we drafted Randall cuz I thought Kelly had a very promissing rookie year (8 ppg, 3.7 Reb, 1.6 assists in 22 min per game). But I think both of them in the lineup would work, just as long as they can keep up w/Scott's standards on D. If they could at least play average D, Kelly would draw out the oppenents bigs to the perimeter, and I think Randall would punish the SF's of the League. Randall kind of (I did say kind of....lol) reminds me of Worthy, as he came out as an athletic 6-9 kid, who could play both PF/SF...and as I think back, Worthy was all post up coming out of college, and he developed an outside shot (and played PF/SF) through the years. Hoping Randall does the same.
Article on Kelly from Lake Show Life :
http://lakeshowlife.com/2014/09/26/ryan-kelly-active-offseason-breakout-year/ |
Opposing team's sf's would guard Kelly on the perimeter, and their big would guard Randle. |
You beat me to that point.
First, Randle at SF is a terrible idea and won't happen. He has nothing close to the skills and athleticism needed to be a 3. Second, if he's paired with Kelly at the two forward spots, you don't even get the size advantage on offense you think we'd get, as teams would put their bigger forward on Randle and their smaller defender on the shooter Kelly |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GonzagaAlum Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2005 Posts: 3021
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Randle today is more Athletic than Ron was some of those years at the 3.
Honestly with his handles I could easily see him playing the spot. Yes they'll sag off him, but then he can back into them or walk his way into the post. It'd have to be in small doses, but I could see it.
Ryan Kelly paired up with him, would help alleviate the concerns also. But a guy like Hill who is a hustle guy... isn't really a post presence. Boozer does have an outside jumper to some extent.
A SF entering the post much like Kobe does... turning... and backing him down could work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
bandiger Franchise Player
Joined: 02 Apr 2014 Posts: 12555
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't like this idea of making Randle a SF. How about sticking to what he truly is a PF. Lets start putting rookies in other positions to (bleep) their development. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
IMO, a terrible idea. Randle is a 4 and should be developed at such. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nnamdi21 Star Player
Joined: 06 Mar 2009 Posts: 3715
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
thats like the weaker version of the odom/pau/bynum lineup we all dreamed of once Pau arrived in 2008 and we all know how that went. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
GonzagaAlum wrote: | Randle today is more Athletic than Ron was some of those years at the 3.
Honestly with his handles I could easily see him playing the spot. Yes they'll sag off him, but then he can back into them or walk his way into the post. It'd have to be in small doses, but I could see it.
Ryan Kelly paired up with him, would help alleviate the concerns also. But a guy like Hill who is a hustle guy... isn't really a post presence. Boozer does have an outside jumper to some extent.
A SF entering the post much like Kobe does... turning... and backing him down could work. |
Using those handles against PFs, nice.
Using those handles against SFs, not as nice. Kahwai strips that every time. Same with every competent SF defender out there. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drifts Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004 Posts: 28374
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobe_MJ_Fan_No_1 wrote: | loslakersss wrote: | That would make us so weak defensively. |
terrible analysis.
Randle gives us size, and length, if anything it improves us defensively. |
not against MDA offense... which is sort of the trend today.
by the way, I am talking about small ball.. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Drifts Retired Number
Joined: 22 Nov 2004 Posts: 28374
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | IMO, a terrible idea. Randle is a 4 and should be developed at such. |
so far... Scott's ingenious solutions sort of falls flat IMO... sigh.
hope he can make this experiment work. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it." |
|
Back to top |
|
|
70sdude Star Player
Joined: 05 Feb 2009 Posts: 4567
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
In terms of his usefulness in a half court defense, I watched Randle in college, and I didn't see much suggesting that he'd be competent guarding typical NBA wings (SFs). He looked mobile in college for a four, and he guarded fours and fives. His lack of elevation suggests he is bound by enough inertia - if anything - for only PF duty here.
As a transition player, he's no wing.
In terms of playing half court offense, his usefulness seems more versatile and so more likely to be able to play with another forward who likes to play drive at times (Johnson) and shoot from outside at others (Kobe, others.) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
22 Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013 Posts: 17063
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why over complicate things, just keep him at the 4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
epak Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005 Posts: 34147
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
kaoss128 wrote: | Horrendous idea. Randle is a 4. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rivershow Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2011 Posts: 6731
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
70sdude wrote: | In terms of his usefulness in a half court defense, I watched Randle in college, and I didn't see much suggesting that he'd be competent guarding typical NBA wings (SFs). He looked mobile in college for a four, and he guarded fours and fives. His lack of elevation suggests he is bound by enough inertia - if anything - for only PF duty here.
As a transition player, he's no wing.
In terms of playing half court offense, his usefulness seems more versatile and so more likely to be able to play with another forward who likes to play drive at times (Johnson) and shoot from outside at others (Kobe, others.) |
Did you not watch summer league? Randle has great transition skills whether to bring the ball up to score or to facilitate. Those are wing tendencies are they not? He's better at the 4 and should stay at the 4 but recognize Randle's talent in that regard. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rivershow wrote: | 70sdude wrote: | In terms of his usefulness in a half court defense, I watched Randle in college, and I didn't see much suggesting that he'd be competent guarding typical NBA wings (SFs). He looked mobile in college for a four, and he guarded fours and fives. His lack of elevation suggests he is bound by enough inertia - if anything - for only PF duty here.
As a transition player, he's no wing.
In terms of playing half court offense, his usefulness seems more versatile and so more likely to be able to play with another forward who likes to play drive at times (Johnson) and shoot from outside at others (Kobe, others.) |
Did you not watch summer league? Randle has great transition skills whether to bring the ball up to score or to facilitate. Those are wing tendencies are they not? He's better at the 4 and should stay at the 4 but recognize Randle's talent in that regard. |
Odom had even better transition skills and was more effective at the 4 than at the 3.
Because of those transition skills, we should want him at the 4, not 3.
Pau is the best passing big man in the game but doesn't mean we ought to play him at PG. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Voices Star Player
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:36 am Post subject: Re: Julius Randle @ SF? |
|
|
Kobe_MJ_Fan_No_1 wrote: | Gives us a real nice big talented line up
Nash/Kobe/Randle/Boozer/Hill
Randle is a face up, off the dribble type of big...
I see him playing a lot like Michael Beasley... so him at SF is a promising idea IMO.
Thoughts? Pros? Cons? |
Dang I just suggested that lineup on another thread, only I said Nash/Lin.
Personally I would love to see if that lineup works, it wood be a rebounding machine lineup! _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001 Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 119487
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Taking our best and physical bruiser out 15-20 feet helps the other teams. Odom wasn't a post up banger; he excelled at facilitating and seeing over his defender in that capacity.
I want to see Randle at the FT line 10 times a game by a few years. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not opposed to experimenting with Randle at the 3 in the future, but not now or any time soon just to satisfy some curiosity.
He needs to be developed in to what we want him to be first. And I'd rather that be a strong and powerful 4 with quick feet, than a slower 3. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pio2u Retired Number
Joined: 26 Dec 2012 Posts: 54519
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Keep him in his comfort zone until he gets acclimated to the NBA.
The kid is going to grow some more so 4 will always be his natural position.
We need his aggressive rebounding and playing 4 would allow him to do just that. Plus he needs to work on his long range jumper.
IMO Randle & the team would be best served if his skills were matched up against a 4 rather than a 3. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Voices Star Player
Joined: 07 Jul 2006 Posts: 8287 Location: Oxnard, Ca.
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Kobe_MJ_Fan_No_1 wrote: | loslakersss wrote: | That would make us so weak defensively. |
terrible analysis.
Randle gives us size, and length, if anything it improves us defensively. |
Yea, totally agree, Mitch even talked about Randle playing the 3, Mitch said Randle would not be a defensive liability because Randle has quick feet and can also handle the ball. _________________ .....
.....
ALTHOUGH HE STANDS 6 FEET 2 INCHES, JIM BUSS ATTENDED JOCKEY SCHOOL WHEN HE WAS 20. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rivershow Star Player
Joined: 09 Dec 2011 Posts: 6731
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
ringfinger wrote: | Rivershow wrote: | 70sdude wrote: | In terms of his usefulness in a half court defense, I watched Randle in college, and I didn't see much suggesting that he'd be competent guarding typical NBA wings (SFs). He looked mobile in college for a four, and he guarded fours and fives. His lack of elevation suggests he is bound by enough inertia - if anything - for only PF duty here.
As a transition player, he's no wing.
In terms of playing half court offense, his usefulness seems more versatile and so more likely to be able to play with another forward who likes to play drive at times (Johnson) and shoot from outside at others (Kobe, others.) |
Did you not watch summer league? Randle has great transition skills whether to bring the ball up to score or to facilitate. Those are wing tendencies are they not? He's better at the 4 and should stay at the 4 but recognize Randle's talent in that regard. |
Odom had even better transition skills and was more effective at the 4 than at the 3.
Because of those transition skills, we should want him at the 4, not 3.
Pau is the best passing big man in the game but doesn't mean we ought to play him at PG. |
Did you not read the rest of my post and just focus on the part where I said he was good in transition? In my post you quoted I specifically said that Randle is a 4. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013 Posts: 29418
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rivershow wrote: | ringfinger wrote: | Rivershow wrote: | 70sdude wrote: | In terms of his usefulness in a half court defense, I watched Randle in college, and I didn't see much suggesting that he'd be competent guarding typical NBA wings (SFs). He looked mobile in college for a four, and he guarded fours and fives. His lack of elevation suggests he is bound by enough inertia - if anything - for only PF duty here.
As a transition player, he's no wing.
In terms of playing half court offense, his usefulness seems more versatile and so more likely to be able to play with another forward who likes to play drive at times (Johnson) and shoot from outside at others (Kobe, others.) |
Did you not watch summer league? Randle has great transition skills whether to bring the ball up to score or to facilitate. Those are wing tendencies are they not? He's better at the 4 and should stay at the 4 but recognize Randle's talent in that regard. |
Odom had even better transition skills and was more effective at the 4 than at the 3.
Because of those transition skills, we should want him at the 4, not 3.
Pau is the best passing big man in the game but doesn't mean we ought to play him at PG. |
Did you not read the rest of my post and just focus on the part where I said he was good in transition? In my post you quoted I specifically said that Randle is a 4. |
Did you read mine? I never said you didn't. Was just adding to what you said kind sir. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mini Mamba Star Player
Joined: 06 May 2013 Posts: 6006
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 11:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lakers_2000 wrote: | oldschool32 wrote: | Makaala4 wrote: | I'm ALL IN for a Randall at SF and Ryan Kelly at PF...we need some youth in this aging lineup. Randall age 20, Kelly age 23. I was kind of bummed when we drafted Randall cuz I thought Kelly had a very promissing rookie year (8 ppg, 3.7 Reb, 1.6 assists in 22 min per game). But I think both of them in the lineup would work, just as long as they can keep up w/Scott's standards on D. If they could at least play average D, Kelly would draw out the oppenents bigs to the perimeter, and I think Randall would punish the SF's of the League. Randall kind of (I did say kind of....lol) reminds me of Worthy, as he came out as an athletic 6-9 kid, who could play both PF/SF...and as I think back, Worthy was all post up coming out of college, and he developed an outside shot (and played PF/SF) through the years. Hoping Randall does the same.
Article on Kelly from Lake Show Life :
http://lakeshowlife.com/2014/09/26/ryan-kelly-active-offseason-breakout-year/ |
Opposing team's sf's would guard Kelly on the perimeter, and their big would guard Randle. |
You beat me to that point.
First, Randle at SF is a terrible idea and won't happen. He has nothing close to the skills and athleticism needed to be a 3. Second, if he's paired with Kelly at the two forward spots, you don't even get the size advantage on offense you think we'd get, as teams would put their bigger forward on Randle and their smaller defender on the shooter Kelly |
Having Kelly and his perimeter shooting to space the floor would allow Randle with his quickness and ball handling ability to take a bigger defender off the dribble and attack the basket.
I think Randle should play mostly at PF but I could see him play some SF depending on the match up. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|