If Clarkson was a bust, would you still draft Okafor/Towns?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCS926
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 16824

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:16 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
RCS926 wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


I think the question is: if we didn't have such a promising guard prospect in Clarkson, would we take Russell over Okafor/Towns? The implication is that we're not giving Russell a fair shake because of our frontcourt needs. It's a moot question because we're not the ones who are going to work out these players. I trust the FO to pick the BPA. If Russell impresses them more than Towns or Okafor, then I have no doubt the Lakers will take Russell at #2. If the Lakers are more impressed by the bigs, then they'll go in that direction. I don't think positional need will have any bearing on who they choose.

As for Clarkson hypothetically being a bust, you can't be a bust as a mid 2nd rounder because the expectations are low to begin with.


Right. Similarly, I'd think Philly would value Russell more than Towns/Okafor because they already have Noel and Embiid. But if you go BPA every time period, you'd have to crowd your frontcourt.

So perhaps -- the reason we don't really factor Clarkson in, is because we're not 100% sold on whether he's the real deal? In other words, he's dispensable. I get the BPA argument, but I don't think it is a hard and fast rule. It would make little sense to have drafted an SG with a high pick in Kobe's prime when he's playing 39-40 MPG.

Well, technically Clarkson was a FA acquisition. (At least, that's how I viewed him). The Lakers specifically went after him. Had he been drafted earlier, we would not have traded for the #46. IIRC, we didn't acquire the pick before the draft, we acquired it when we found a willing trade partner who had a pick with Clarkson still on the board. And plus, we severely overpaid for what a typical 2nd round pick what cost you, so I think there were some expectations there.

But ok, it sounds like for most of you, Clarkson's emergence is a non-factor, I think that's fair given he is still unproven.


The other factor is that most people think that Russell and Clarkson would be great TOGETHER in the backcourt. They are both combo guards who can handle the PG or SG duties, and they are both big enough to guard the 2 position. If you've been following the draft thread for a while, then you would know that most people that want Russell aren't looking for him to displace Jordan. They want to see both of them play together and wreak havoc on opposing backcourts with their ability to both score and create plays for others.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dave20
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:20 am    Post subject:

If Clarkson wasn't on the team, I'd still take Okafor and Towns over Russell. They're are better prospects. The Lakers got a steal with Clarkson. Kupchak compared him yesterday on the Herd to Westbrook.

He didn't say he was better, just he's the closest player in the league to him because of playing style and athleticism. He was also asked was he interested in Rondo. The first thing Kupchak mentioned was that he had a good ball handling guard in Clarkson that made 1st team all rookie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:22 am    Post subject:

Dave20 wrote:
If Clarkson wasn't on the team, I'd still take Okafor and Towns over Russell. They're are better prospects. The Lakers got a steal with Clarkson. Kupchak compared him yesterday on the Herd to Westbrook.

He didn't say he was better, just he's the closest player in the league to him because of playing style and athleticism. He was also asked was he interested in Rondo. The first thing Kupchak mentioned was that he had a good ball handling guard in Clarkson that made 1st team all rookie.


Hm... Mitch talking Clarkson up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:26 am    Post subject:

RCS926 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
RCS926 wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


I think the question is: if we didn't have such a promising guard prospect in Clarkson, would we take Russell over Okafor/Towns? The implication is that we're not giving Russell a fair shake because of our frontcourt needs. It's a moot question because we're not the ones who are going to work out these players. I trust the FO to pick the BPA. If Russell impresses them more than Towns or Okafor, then I have no doubt the Lakers will take Russell at #2. If the Lakers are more impressed by the bigs, then they'll go in that direction. I don't think positional need will have any bearing on who they choose.

As for Clarkson hypothetically being a bust, you can't be a bust as a mid 2nd rounder because the expectations are low to begin with.


Right. Similarly, I'd think Philly would value Russell more than Towns/Okafor because they already have Noel and Embiid. But if you go BPA every time period, you'd have to crowd your frontcourt.

So perhaps -- the reason we don't really factor Clarkson in, is because we're not 100% sold on whether he's the real deal? In other words, he's dispensable. I get the BPA argument, but I don't think it is a hard and fast rule. It would make little sense to have drafted an SG with a high pick in Kobe's prime when he's playing 39-40 MPG.

Well, technically Clarkson was a FA acquisition. (At least, that's how I viewed him). The Lakers specifically went after him. Had he been drafted earlier, we would not have traded for the #46. IIRC, we didn't acquire the pick before the draft, we acquired it when we found a willing trade partner who had a pick with Clarkson still on the board. And plus, we severely overpaid for what a typical 2nd round pick what cost you, so I think there were some expectations there.

But ok, it sounds like for most of you, Clarkson's emergence is a non-factor, I think that's fair given he is still unproven.


The other factor is that most people think that Russell and Clarkson would be great TOGETHER in the backcourt. They are both combo guards who can handle the PG or SG duties, and they are both big enough to guard the 2 position. If you've been following the draft thread for a while, then you would know that most people that want Russell aren't looking for him to displace Jordan. They want to see both of them play together and wreak havoc on opposing backcourts with their ability to both score and create plays for others.


Maybe I just can't see Clarkson at the 2 because he seems to like to ball the ball in his hands.

Then again, we already have a 2 that seems to like the ball in his hands and he turned out alright I guess =)

So maybe Clarkson isn't a reason to pivot on a draft strategy, but I do really, really want Clarkson to have an opportunity to emerge as a Laker so I'd hate to see him take a back seat to any draft pick or even FA signing. Maybe I'm slightly relieved we're going big in the draft, because it'll keep Clarkson's role intact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dave20
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Jun 2013
Posts: 11333

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:32 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Dave20 wrote:
If Clarkson wasn't on the team, I'd still take Okafor and Towns over Russell. They're are better prospects. The Lakers got a steal with Clarkson. Kupchak compared him yesterday on the Herd to Westbrook.

He didn't say he was better, just he's the closest player in the league to him because of playing style and athleticism. He was also asked was he interested in Rondo. The first thing Kupchak mentioned was that he had a good ball handling guard in Clarkson that made 1st team all rookie.


Hm... Mitch talking Clarkson up.
The Lakers FO are really high on Clarkson, Randle as well. Randle/Clarkson/Okafor is starting to remind me of how Durant/Westbrook/Harden got together. Okafor 19, Randle 20, Clarkson 22. All similar ages with great offensive games.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RCS926
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 16824

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:42 am    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
RCS926 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
RCS926 wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


I think the question is: if we didn't have such a promising guard prospect in Clarkson, would we take Russell over Okafor/Towns? The implication is that we're not giving Russell a fair shake because of our frontcourt needs. It's a moot question because we're not the ones who are going to work out these players. I trust the FO to pick the BPA. If Russell impresses them more than Towns or Okafor, then I have no doubt the Lakers will take Russell at #2. If the Lakers are more impressed by the bigs, then they'll go in that direction. I don't think positional need will have any bearing on who they choose.

As for Clarkson hypothetically being a bust, you can't be a bust as a mid 2nd rounder because the expectations are low to begin with.


Right. Similarly, I'd think Philly would value Russell more than Towns/Okafor because they already have Noel and Embiid. But if you go BPA every time period, you'd have to crowd your frontcourt.

So perhaps -- the reason we don't really factor Clarkson in, is because we're not 100% sold on whether he's the real deal? In other words, he's dispensable. I get the BPA argument, but I don't think it is a hard and fast rule. It would make little sense to have drafted an SG with a high pick in Kobe's prime when he's playing 39-40 MPG.

Well, technically Clarkson was a FA acquisition. (At least, that's how I viewed him). The Lakers specifically went after him. Had he been drafted earlier, we would not have traded for the #46. IIRC, we didn't acquire the pick before the draft, we acquired it when we found a willing trade partner who had a pick with Clarkson still on the board. And plus, we severely overpaid for what a typical 2nd round pick what cost you, so I think there were some expectations there.

But ok, it sounds like for most of you, Clarkson's emergence is a non-factor, I think that's fair given he is still unproven.


The other factor is that most people think that Russell and Clarkson would be great TOGETHER in the backcourt. They are both combo guards who can handle the PG or SG duties, and they are both big enough to guard the 2 position. If you've been following the draft thread for a while, then you would know that most people that want Russell aren't looking for him to displace Jordan. They want to see both of them play together and wreak havoc on opposing backcourts with their ability to both score and create plays for others.


Maybe I just can't see Clarkson at the 2 because he seems to like to ball the ball in his hands.

Then again, we already have a 2 that seems to like the ball in his hands and he turned out alright I guess =)

So maybe Clarkson isn't a reason to pivot on a draft strategy, but I do really, really want Clarkson to have an opportunity to emerge as a Laker so I'd hate to see him take a back seat to any draft pick or even FA signing. Maybe I'm slightly relieved we're going big in the draft, because it'll keep Clarkson's role intact.


I think Jordan would prefer to have the ball in his hands, but he also does things that lead you to believe that he can play off of another dominant ball handler or primary option. He cuts well off the ball and has a penchant for crashing the offensive glass. Even when he does have the ball in his hands, he doesn't pound the dribble. He normally makes quick decisions, which bodes well in terms of being deadly in secondary offensive situations. For instance, if the defense breaks down due to doubling the post or dribble penetration, Jordan can take advantage of the scrambling D to either create for himself or others. We know that he's making it a focus to improve his 3 point shooting. I'm not worried about Jordan potentially sharing the backcourt with another combo guard like Russell or Dragic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
RCS926
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 16824

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:49 am    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Dave20 wrote:
If Clarkson wasn't on the team, I'd still take Okafor and Towns over Russell. They're are better prospects. The Lakers got a steal with Clarkson. Kupchak compared him yesterday on the Herd to Westbrook.

He didn't say he was better, just he's the closest player in the league to him because of playing style and athleticism. He was also asked was he interested in Rondo. The first thing Kupchak mentioned was that he had a good ball handling guard in Clarkson that made 1st team all rookie.


Hm... Mitch talking Clarkson up.


That's always a possibility especially if it involves Mitch's magic wand. However, I think the Lakers are also just that high on Jordan. They obviously saw something special in him last summer, and they've seen the work the JC has put in.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Big Game James
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Posts: 4003
Location: The official trout slapper of LG.net

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 8:55 am    Post subject:

I personally want to draft Russell for the sole purpose of seeing what the 76ers do with their pick. Would they really draft Okafor even though their last two top picks were Noel & Embiid. If they draft BPA, they would be so front court heavy and unbalanced. It would be an interesting predicament to see unfold.
_________________
Don't make me give you a trout slap!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Ziggy
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 12712

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 9:42 am    Post subject:

There are some who feel Russell is actually the best player in this draft. I think that's why this is a legitimate question. Philly is in the best position, because even if they had the #1 or #2 pick, no one would've questioned their decision to take Russell. He fills a need and he just might turn out to be the best player in this draft.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 12:45 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


It's a fairly basic question really. Let me simplify a bit.

Does the presence of Clarkson affect who you would draft with the #2? (You can just answer with yes or no).

Now, for Gatekeeper and some others ... I suppose it is a BPA type discussion, but I've never been a strict BPA guy. I think it would be silly to draft an SG in Kobe's prime for instance. Similarly, if we can get a legit big via FA (such as DeAndre), I can see it making some sense to go PG as well.

Here's another simple question -- which would you rather have:

DeAndre Jordan, Julius Randall, D'Angelo Russell+Jordan Clarkson, less cap space

or

Jahlil Okafor, Julius Randall, Jordan Clarkson+Backup-PG, more cap space

If you are a strict BPA type, you can ONLY opt for the second scenario (we're assuming KAT goes #1 here of course). I'm just not 100% certain the second scenario is better.


I'm a firm believer that this high up in the draft, you go BPA. If you like one guy more than the other, you take him, regardless of position, and sort it out later. If two guys are relatively close to each other, then you might consider other factors.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dmorans1
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 11669

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 12:50 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


It's a fairly basic question really. Let me simplify a bit.

Does the presence of Clarkson affect who you would draft with the #2? (You can just answer with yes or no).

Now, for Gatekeeper and some others ... I suppose it is a BPA type discussion, but I've never been a strict BPA guy. I think it would be silly to draft an SG in Kobe's prime for instance. Similarly, if we can get a legit big via FA (such as DeAndre), I can see it making some sense to go PG as well.

Here's another simple question -- which would you rather have:

DeAndre Jordan, Julius Randall, D'Angelo Russell+Jordan Clarkson, less cap space

or

Jahlil Okafor, Julius Randall, Jordan Clarkson+Backup-PG, more cap space

If you are a strict BPA type, you can ONLY opt for the second scenario (we're assuming KAT goes #1 here of course). I'm just not 100% certain the second scenario is better.


Wait so in the first scenario you assume we sign arguably the best big man in free agency? Draft comes first, how the hell are the Lakers gonna assume we will sign Jordan by the draft? See where that logic is flawed? Draft BPA first and work out the rest later.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
panamaniac
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 11238
Location: PTY

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 12:53 pm    Post subject:

Honestly, Clarkson is not a substantial enough piece to influence who I take with the no. 2 pick. And that is not a knock on Clarkson.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 1:34 pm    Post subject:

dmorans1 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
24 wrote:
I don't understand the question. Towns and okafor are the consensus top two across the league because clarkson played well for LA?


It's a fairly basic question really. Let me simplify a bit.

Does the presence of Clarkson affect who you would draft with the #2? (You can just answer with yes or no).

Now, for Gatekeeper and some others ... I suppose it is a BPA type discussion, but I've never been a strict BPA guy. I think it would be silly to draft an SG in Kobe's prime for instance. Similarly, if we can get a legit big via FA (such as DeAndre), I can see it making some sense to go PG as well.

Here's another simple question -- which would you rather have:

DeAndre Jordan, Julius Randall, D'Angelo Russell+Jordan Clarkson, less cap space

or

Jahlil Okafor, Julius Randall, Jordan Clarkson+Backup-PG, more cap space

If you are a strict BPA type, you can ONLY opt for the second scenario (we're assuming KAT goes #1 here of course). I'm just not 100% certain the second scenario is better.


Wait so in the first scenario you assume we sign arguably the best big man in free agency? Draft comes first, how the hell are the Lakers gonna assume we will sign Jordan by the draft? See where that logic is flawed? Draft BPA first and work out the rest later.


I know. I'm saying what if we knew Deandre would come here, do you still draft big? I get those who are strict BPA, and I'm BPA as well but with some exceptions.

In other words, would you draft big because you aren't confident that we can get a big in free agency, or because you're strict BPA, and even if we already had DeAndre, you're drafting big anyway?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 1:47 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Dave20 wrote:
If Clarkson wasn't on the team, I'd still take Okafor and Towns over Russell. They're are better prospects. The Lakers got a steal with Clarkson. Kupchak compared him yesterday on the Herd to Westbrook.

He didn't say he was better, just he's the closest player in the league to him because of playing style and athleticism. He was also asked was he interested in Rondo. The first thing Kupchak mentioned was that he had a good ball handling guard in Clarkson that made 1st team all rookie.


Hm... Mitch talking Clarkson up.


Mitch also said that he put up stats on a bad team so the jury's still out on him. and i quote.
He compared him to Westbrook only in being scoring first, actually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144432
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 1:51 pm    Post subject:

Clarkson shouldn't be a consideration when we decide who to pick.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
r41
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 19 Feb 2012
Posts: 68

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 1:51 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
In other words, would you draft big because you aren't confident that we can get a big in free agency, or because you're strict BPA, and even if we already had DeAndre, you're drafting big anyway?


We can't have DJ at draft day, hence your assumption is out of reality.
And we'll not draft big, as you are saying.
Simply happens the two BP available in this draft are bigs, that's a completely different thing.
Case closed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
NomisR
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Posts: 471

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:07 pm    Post subject:

It's always about the BPA, especially considering we have holes at every position.. this is even more true.

Based on what I've seen with all 3 players, I wouldn't consider Russell to be in the same Tier. It's also about who I believe would be the biggest game changer. If you look at the league right now, it's full of elite guards. OTOH, if you look at the stock of centers right now, it's the weakest it's been since the 2000s, the "best" centers in the league isn't even among to top 10 right now in most books. With this knowledge, I think either Okafor or Towns can be a game changer in that respect

Russell on the other hand, I don't see him moving the needle one bit for the team, he would simply at best be another elite guard among a lot of other elite guards, while the 2 center picks has the ability to be the best center in the last decade. While it may be an exaggeration, I see the center prospects to help the team's future a lot more than the Russell.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vancouver Fan
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 17740

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:09 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Clarkson shouldn't be a consideration when we decide who to pick.

_________________
Music is my medicine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LoyalLakerfan44
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 3219

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:14 pm    Post subject:

In the words of the great Jerry West, you always draft talented bigs. You cannot teach big.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
USCandLakers
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Mar 2008
Posts: 19955

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:21 pm    Post subject:

I'd take Russell over Towns and Okafor right now, so I'd definitely take him if we didn't have Clarkson.
_________________
A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
magic2mamba
Sixth Man
Sixth Man


Joined: 07 Jul 2014
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:23 pm    Post subject: Re: If Clarkson was a bust, would you still draft Okafor/Towns?

ringfinger wrote:
Was listening to the radio yesterday and Max and Marcellus was on and they were going through all kinds of draft scenarios for the Lakers. I thought Max brought up an interesting point in that we might be able to sign a big and draft a small. I'm a believer in Clarkson, but, you just never know.

So, here's my question for you guys. Is Okafor/Towns the consensus pick for us because of Clarkson's emergence? Or would you draft one of those two guys regardless?

If Clarkson was a "bust" let's say (or you can assume we just didn't even have him at all), how would your draft selection change, if at all? Assume the more desirable of Okafor/Towns for you was drafted by MIN.

There's always the option of going after a Marc Gasol, DeAndre Jordan or Tyson Chandler to shore up the front court with Randall and drafting D'Angelo Russell instead.

I'm just curious if Okafor is the consensus #2 assuming MIN drafts KAT, is that because he is the BPA or because we feel we have a need met at the PG spot in Clarkson?


I would go Mudiay even if Okafor is on the board. Monroe, Gasol, Jordan, all these guys are available. There is not elite talent ball handlers/PG available. Not only that. As pleased as I am with Clarkson, he is not an elite level PG or SG, but he is an excellent option to back up both positions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:25 pm    Post subject:

r41 wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
In other words, would you draft big because you aren't confident that we can get a big in free agency, or because you're strict BPA, and even if we already had DeAndre, you're drafting big anyway?


We can't have DJ at draft day, hence your assumption is out of reality.
And we'll not draft big, as you are saying.
Simply happens the two BP available in this draft are bigs, that's a completely different thing.
Case closed.


I'm not assuming anything.

But let's do that. Assume free agency came first. Do you avoid Deandre because you draft BPA and thus will be getting a big? Or do you pursue Deandre and draft a big because of BPA anyway?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aphex Twin
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 850

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:28 pm    Post subject:

Sounds like Mitchell is hyping Clarkson as the next Westbrook so he could trade him for Westbrook
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Genaro
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 10 Feb 2015
Posts: 387
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:30 pm    Post subject:

Yes, even without Clarkson on board Towns and Okafor are the best prospects. As people said, you always go for the BPA if you have a rebuilding team like the Lakers, everyone can be traded at this point.

And you can't let the FA influence your pick, how do we know some of those big names wants to be a Laker?
I just hope they stay away from Rondo and Love.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32730

PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2015 2:36 pm    Post subject:

Let's rephrase the question: If Clarkson was 7'2", 300 lbs., played offense like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and defense like Bill Russell, would you still draft Towns or Okafor?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
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