Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 8:51 pm Post subject:
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Hey kevin love is more "undersized" than Randle. And he was considered the best Pf in the league for a couple seasons
Again nobody ever said him being undersized is gonna prevent him from having a successful career.
His overall skill set more than makes up for what he lacks in size.
How many bigs out there have his handles or his ability to beat a man off the dribble combined with a nice array of post moves?
There's not many. That's why he can be special.
Do you think he's a better ball handler than Lamar Odom?
Nope but Odom was naturally passive. He had the talents to be special but lacked the desire. Anyone that has watched Randle knows that the kid is anything but passive.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2015 9:51 pm Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
I have some concerns about Randle (health, outside shot, and no right hand). It is really sad that he got hurt and lost a year to develope. Right now, nobody knows nothing about him. He is no different than all the rest of the kids being drafted. I would never trade him for a pick, but I would trade him for a young player on a rookie contract who is already a proven commodity in the league.
Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 11197 Location: The Other Perspective
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:13 am Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
Since he doesn't have elite athleticism, he needs that jumper badly to match his ball handling. _________________ "Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
Since he doesn't have elite athleticism, he needs that jumper badly to match his ball handling.
Randle is incredibly quick. He may not be a big leaper but for a guy his size to move so quick, would be considered elite athleticism imo.
Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 11197 Location: The Other Perspective
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:48 am Post subject:
Rivershow wrote:
LandsbergerRules wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
Since he doesn't have elite athleticism, he needs that jumper badly to match his ball handling.
Randle is incredibly quick. He may not be a big leaper but for a guy his size to move so quick, would be considered elite athleticism imo.
I think he gets by other PFs with his ball handling more than with an explosive first step. _________________ "Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
Since he doesn't have elite athleticism, he needs that jumper badly to match his ball handling.
Randle is incredibly quick. He may not be a big leaper but for a guy his size to move so quick, would be considered elite athleticism imo.
I think he gets by other PFs with his ball handling more than with an explosive first step.
Disagree, ball handling alone can't account for getting by a defender. That's why people talk about first steps and how they make players elite. For his position, Randle has an elite first step.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 9:58 am Post subject:
Rivershow wrote:
LandsbergerRules wrote:
Rivershow wrote:
LandsbergerRules wrote:
LakerSanity wrote:
Yea, he's not undersized. He's not Dejaun Blair or Chuck Hayes. He's just not ideal size (i.e. the Garnett, Aldridge, Duncan, Gasol & Davis class). He's in the Love, Lee, Griffin and Lebron class... and technically taller/longer than each of those guys. What makes those guys superstars though, as opposed to just average NBA forwards, is that they each possess some combination of guard skills, shooting and/or elite athleticism.
The question remains whether Randle has any of those traits, or all of them, to get him to that level. He's already shown he is more than capable of being a point forward.... that's a start.
Since he doesn't have elite athleticism, he needs that jumper badly to match his ball handling.
Randle is incredibly quick. He may not be a big leaper but for a guy his size to move so quick, would be considered elite athleticism imo.
I think he gets by other PFs with his ball handling more than with an explosive first step.
Disagree, ball handling alone can't account for getting by a defender. That's why people talk about first steps and how they make players elite. For his position, Randle has an elite first step.
Stephen Curry? _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Odom had all the tools and gifts to be great, he just didn't utilize them enough to take it to the next level. That and the fact that he never learned to go right.
The guy came into the league as a Swiss army knife type of player...and then stayed that way. No improvements. He lacked the passion or motivations to get better.
Randle, unlike Odom will have that passion and motivation to get better.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:13 am Post subject:
venturalakersfan wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Lakers2015 wrote:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
Hey kevin love is more "undersized" than Randle. And he was considered the best Pf in the league for a couple seasons
Again nobody ever said him being undersized is gonna prevent him from having a successful career.
His overall skill set more than makes up for what he lacks in size.
How many bigs out there have his handles or his ability to beat a man off the dribble combined with a nice array of post moves?
There's not many. That's why he can be special.
Do you think he's a better ball handler than Lamar Odom?
Coming out of college? Yeah.
I don't have a position on it either way. In Odom's case he had great handles and instincts for a player his size, and everyone went gaga over that, but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO. A lightning quick first step (James Worthy) would have suited him better.
Joined: 02 Jan 2011 Posts: 36081 Location: 502 Bad Gateway
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:28 am Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO.
Disagree. He was playing point forward for the Clippers his first years into the league.
Court awareness/passing were above average for a SF, but not PG level.
successfully run perhaps. He didn't have the basketball IQ for it either. Everyone just assumed because he was naturally unselfish he must have a knack for it.
He was playing point guard to end his rookie season IIRC, but it was the Clippers...
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:35 am Post subject:
greenfrog wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO.
Disagree. He was playing point forward for the Clippers his first years into the league.
Court awareness/passing were above average for a SF, but not PG level.
successfully run perhaps. He didn't have the basketball IQ for it either. Everyone just assumed because he was naturally unselfish he must have a knack for it.
He was playing point guard to end his rookie season IIRC, but it was the Clippers...
If a guy is getting by on 4-6apg early in his career, it's more than just unselfishness. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO.
Disagree. He was playing point forward for the Clippers his first years into the league.
Court awareness/passing were above average for a SF, but not PG level.
successfully run perhaps. He didn't have the basketball IQ for it either. Everyone just assumed because he was naturally unselfish he must have a knack for it.
He was playing point guard to end his rookie season IIRC, but it was the Clippers...
If a guy is getting by on 4-6apg early in his career, it's more than just unselfishness.
Do you think the Greek Freek can be what Odom could have been? Not unless he gets a legit jumper huh. He does play half of his minutes at Pf
Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 11197 Location: The Other Perspective
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:45 am Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO.
Disagree. He was playing point forward for the Clippers his first years into the league.
Court awareness/passing were above average for a SF, but not PG level.
It's weird that you guys are arguing, since it seems like you basically agree here. If his court awareness/passing were above avg for a SF but not PG level, doesn't that mean that he isn't good enough to properly run an offense? _________________ "Chick lived and breathed Lakers basketball…but he was also fair and objective and called every game the way it was played."
-from Chick: His Unpublished Memoirs and the Memories of Those Who Knew Him
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun Apr 12, 2015 10:45 am Post subject:
KeepItRealOrElse wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
but they weren't ever good enough (Magic type good) to properly run an NBA offense at his size IMO.
Disagree. He was playing point forward for the Clippers his first years into the league.
Court awareness/passing were above average for a SF, but not PG level.
successfully run perhaps. He didn't have the basketball IQ for it either. Everyone just assumed because he was naturally unselfish he must have a knack for it.
He was playing point guard to end his rookie season IIRC, but it was the Clippers...
If a guy is getting by on 4-6apg early in his career, it's more than just unselfishness.
Do you think the Greek Freek can be what Odom could have been? Not unless he gets a legit jumper huh. He does play half of his minutes at Pf
He has good passing abilities, but not yet the established vision and IQ to be a natural playmaker.
It's the same skill set. One change of direction, long strides, at hoop. Then the set shots along the perimeter.
He has a very upright type of gait, like how Magic Johnson was as a player. It's hard to see him as a dynamic player as a ball-handler in isolation situations.
Post game doesn't seem natural to him either.
Just please don't put him on the Warriors. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
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
