| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LakersForever123
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 2263
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | Randle has a chance to be a guy you can play with either a sf or a pf, not because hes one or the other, but some of both. He has the footspeed, agility, handles, and length of a sf, with strength and physicality of a four. Your best thing is to find guys that work off of him and allow him to play both down low and off the dribble, and force the other team to adjust. Getting hung up on positions muddies that up. You can play him with wes, or with boozer, or with kelly, all with different matchup quandries for the opponent. In many ways, he has the physical tools to match up best defensively with a lot of threes, so if you can force them to guard him you have an advantage. Similarly, he can use his quickness and physicality against a lot of fours as well.
Bottom line is you find a way to get him on the floor with whomever works best with him, and worry about what to call each kater. |
As always.....excellent analysis 24. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iggypop123
Star Player
Joined: 31 May 2008
Posts: 5402
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
this is basically lamar odom all over again. people thinking he can play sf, when its a terrible idea. phil avoided using him as sf unless it was out of desperation. it just doesnt work. spacing, continuity, the players skill. it really boggles the mind why some would suggest it.
_________________
Kobe "I mean Phil's been here, and -- to be honest with you -- we might have, in all the years I've been with Phil, (had) maybe three defensive drills the entire time" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slestack11
Sixth Man
Joined: 03 Jul 2014
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why can't we just start Boozer at SF
PG - Nash
SG - Kobe
SF - Boozer
PF - Randle
C - Hill |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slestack11 wrote: | Why can't we just start Boozer at SF
PG - Nash
SG - Kobe
SF - Boozer
PF - Randle
C - Hill |
please be serious, so i can have some fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29376
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakersForever123 wrote: | | 24 wrote: | Randle has a chance to be a guy you can play with either a sf or a pf, not because hes one or the other, but some of both. He has the footspeed, agility, handles, and length of a sf, with strength and physicality of a four. Your best thing is to find guys that work off of him and allow him to play both down low and off the dribble, and force the other team to adjust. Getting hung up on positions muddies that up. You can play him with wes, or with boozer, or with kelly, all with different matchup quandries for the opponent. In many ways, he has the physical tools to match up best defensively with a lot of threes, so if you can force them to guard him you have an advantage. Similarly, he can use his quickness and physicality against a lot of fours as well.
Bottom line is you find a way to get him on the floor with whomever works best with him, and worry about what to call each kater. |
As always.....excellent analysis 24. |
Good analysis 24.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29376
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
The lakers have too many power forwards! I hope we trade 1 away for good value by the end of the season. But in the meantime, randle at the 3 isn't a crazy idea when you think of the alternative (wes). Randle doesn't space the floor...But neither does wes. Randle isn't a good perimeter defender... Buy Wes's defense is barely above-average on the perimeter .
I want to see randle go head to head against other big or athletic 3's (lebron, melo, pierce, igoudala, types). I think he will flourish if given quality minutes against quality opponents. Plus I don't see us losing much if it doesn't work well immediately. Wesley Johnson isn't some amazing lockdown defender who drains three pointers left and right.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ADA32
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Jul 2014
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | Randle has a chance to be a guy you can play with either a sf or a pf, not because hes one or the other, but some of both. He has the footspeed, agility, handles, and length of a sf, with strength and physicality of a four. Your best thing is to find guys that work off of him and allow him to play both down low and off the dribble, and force the other team to adjust. Getting hung up on positions muddies that up. You can play him with wes, or with boozer, or with kelly, all with different matchup quandries for the opponent. In many ways, he has the physical tools to match up best defensively with a lot of threes, so if you can force them to guard him you have an advantage. Similarly, he can use his quickness and physicality against a lot of fours as well.
Bottom line is you find a way to get him on the floor with whomever works best with him, and worry about what to call each kater. |
Right on, Bro! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
youcantguardme
Star Player
Joined: 10 Jan 2011
Posts: 1117
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CandyCanes wrote: | | This is a worse idea than Odom at PG. |
Welcome to LG. You are naturally going to get fans that only think of basketball as an offense thing. I'm just hoping the kid is good enough to get decent minutes at PF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| youcantguardme wrote: | | CandyCanes wrote: | | This is a worse idea than Odom at PG. |
Welcome to LG. You are naturally going to get fans that only think of basketball as an offense thing. I'm just hoping the kid is good enough to get decent minutes at PF. |
I'd argue that he's more suited to defend the 3 than the 4. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MIMLaker
Franchise Player
Joined: 18 Jul 2001
Posts: 10015
Location: Los Angeles/ Alhambra, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 24 wrote: | Randle has a chance to be a guy you can play with either a sf or a pf, not because hes one or the other, but some of both. He has the footspeed, agility, handles, and length of a sf, with strength and physicality of a four. Your best thing is to find guys that work off of him and allow him to play both down low and off the dribble, and force the other team to adjust. Getting hung up on positions muddies that up. You can play him with wes, or with boozer, or with kelly, all with different matchup quandries for the opponent. In many ways, he has the physical tools to match up best defensively with a lot of threes, so if you can force them to guard him you have an advantage. Similarly, he can use his quickness and physicality against a lot of fours as well.
Bottom line is you find a way to get him on the floor with whomever works best with him, and worry about what to call eacIh kater. |
I don't know - I'm always worried about players who supposedly can play both SF and PF, because they are often glaringly better at one than the other. Lamar supposedly had the skills to do both, but he could never keep up or outrun SFs while he was here, even though he could rotate and help on opposing SFs when needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think a lot of the advantages of Randle at the PF are mitigated at the SF spot where he'd have to play bully ball to get to the rim (unless he's all of a sudden developed a 3 point and mid-range game). I'm fine with using him in certain scenarios, but not full-time.
Once Randle's outside game improves, I can see him being used in more of a hybrid role, but as of now, I haven't seen enough of that yet (I think he will improve based on his work ethic).
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144475
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that Randle at the SF position would be on occasion and only with certain lineups. I doubt it would be a long term option, at least not anytime soon.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King beef
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:04 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? |
I could not agree more. Even when watching Randle in college I thought he had more of a natural SF game than a PF game, especially in the NBA where size is more of an issue. Randle was double teamed so much in college that I didnt think he had a chance to display a SF game.
While Randle was in college, well before I even considered that he might be a Laker one day, I thought that Randle would be made or broken based on the situation he is put in in the NBA. James Worthy played PF/C in college. In the NBA, James Worthy displayed skills as a SF that I dont think many people thought he had. Ultimately, the Lakers had a big lineup with Worthy as a 6'9" SF and Magic as a 6'9" PG. THey were able to get away with Byron Scott being a relatively small 6'4" shooting guard and still have a big lineup that was able to play great team defense.
I hope the Lakers play Randle at SF. If he could bank at PF, then fine. But from what I have seen, the guy is more suited to play SF than PF in the NBA. Randle has a SF quickness and face up game. If he developes a 15 - 18 foor jumper, he could be a very good SF. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakersNewEra
Star Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2014
Posts: 1526
Location: Vancouver BC
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have never understood the obsession people on this site have had for years with playing undersized PF's at SF. It always had me baffled. Especially in today's era of basketball.
It was always a terrible idea for any undersized PF we have had in the past and it still is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144475
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will never understand the obsession people have with calling a 6-9 PF undersized.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greenfrog
Retired Number
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | I will never understand the obsession people have with calling a 6-9 PF undersized. |
There are 5 PF's in the west shorter than him. This is not even factoring standing reach. I think that qualifies on the small side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King beef
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jan 2014
Posts: 356
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I dont think it has much to do with size. 6'9" is enough size especially when a young guy appears to be as strong and quick as Randle.
I think it is all about Randles game. I see Randle with an NBA SF game more than an NBA PF game. At least that is what I see right now, after witnessing 0 games. Take it with a grain of salt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | I will never understand the obsession people have with calling a 6-9 PF undersized. |
In today's game, 6-9 is not large by any means. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144475
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Undersized" does not describe large, it describes small. And Randle is not small for a PF.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | "Undersized" does not describe large, it describes small. And Randle is not small for a PF. |
I never said Randle was small for a PF. Don't put words in my mouth!
I said "In today's game, 6-9 is not large by any means" and that is all. It is a true statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: Julius Randle @ SF? |
|
|
| King beef wrote: | | 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? |
I could not agree more. Even when watching Randle in college I thought he had more of a natural SF game than a PF game, especially in the NBA where size is more of an issue. Randle was double teamed so much in college that I didnt think he had a chance to display a SF game.
While Randle was in college, well before I even considered that he might be a Laker one day, I thought that Randle would be made or broken based on the situation he is put in in the NBA. James Worthy played PF/C in college. In the NBA, James Worthy displayed skills as a SF that I dont think many people thought he had. Ultimately, the Lakers had a big lineup with Worthy as a 6'9" SF and Magic as a 6'9" PG. THey were able to get away with Byron Scott being a relatively small 6'4" shooting guard and still have a big lineup that was able to play great team defense.
I hope the Lakers play Randle at SF. If he could bank at PF, then fine. But from what I have seen, the guy is more suited to play SF than PF in the NBA. Randle has a SF quickness and face up game. If he developes a 15 - 18 foor jumper, he could be a very good SF. |
that makes him better off playing PF, cuz that's where his advantage would be with that skillset. That skillset at SF doesnt make him a special player. His post game would, tho. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PROPHET
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jul 2001
Posts: 4356
Location: Oxnard, CA - The Nard
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The league is changing though you don't have the Kevin Garnett's, Duncans and Gasols with elite size. Now you have the Kevin Loves and Blake Griffins, Randle fits into that mold. He's not small by any means he's about the same size standing reach as those two guys but he has a unique game for a PF almost Barkley like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rawr
Star Player
Joined: 26 Dec 2007
Posts: 1186
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greenfrog wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | I will never understand the obsession people have with calling a 6-9 PF undersized. |
There are 5 PF's in the west shorter than him. This is not even factoring standing reach. I think that qualifies on the small side. |
Which 5?
_________________
You are either in or on your way to the NBA Finals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakerjoshua
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 11277
Location: Bay Area
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | "Undersized" does not describe large, it describes small. And Randle is not small for a PF. |
I never said Randle was small for a PF. Don't put words in my mouth!
I said "In today's game, 6-9 is not large by any means" and that is all. It is a true statement. |
So what conclusion were we supposed to draw from your comment then?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakerjoshua wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | "Undersized" does not describe large, it describes small. And Randle is not small for a PF. |
I never said Randle was small for a PF. Don't put words in my mouth!
I said "In today's game, 6-9 is not large by any means" and that is all. It is a true statement. |
So what conclusion were we supposed to draw from your comment then? |
That in today's game 6-9 is not large. By any means.
Nothing more, nothing less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
