Russell should be a very dynamic scorer and passer especially on a team that will have to worry about Ingram at the same time. I still think it is a mistake for the Lakers to move forward with the idea that Russell is a PG where yes he can get the job done as a shot creator, ball handler, etc but I think its a damn waste of his talents.
At SG his ball handling, passing and court vision would be absolutely fantastic and paired with a PG worth a damn would give the Lakers a huge advantage in terms of shot creation especially with them already having a pair of high quality scorers in Ingram and Russell they'd also ensure they would be an out standing passing team and with that they'd almost ensure they would have a top 3-5 offense every year for a very long time if they keep them together.
Having that type of passing talent and with all the attention that Ingram and Russell will get from the defense it should make it possible for them to focus on defense first at C and PF moving forward when building out the rest of our roster long term.
This bodes well for Nance whom should work very nicely if not as a starting PF then certainly as an excellent rotation player giving us athletic ability, rebounding, high light dunks and such. I think he is a real keeper and if they can keep him in that role off the bench he will be in my opinion one of the better rotation players in the league.
What's the defacto difference in playstyle between Steph Curry and James Harden?
What positions do they play?
So how much does it really matter at this point?
I highlighted it in my post. It's significantly easier to plug in another point guard with playmaking skills than a 2 guard with those skills.
In other words I'd rather plug in a player like George Hill at the 1 and slide Russell to the 2 than keep Russell at the 1 and plug in a Danny Green player at the 2.
What are you even arguing? Russell should play differently? Give the ball to Clarkson more?
Do you want Russell guarded by SGs instead of PGs? I'd rather give him the size advantage against PGs, but it's not like the other team isn't going to get the match up they want. The Lakers will try to get advantageous switches I'm sure, but the other team is going to at least start with the match ups they want.
Joined: 15 Sep 2012 Posts: 29285 Location: La La Land
Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 12:26 pm Post subject:
Roon wrote:
What are you even arguing? Russell should play differently? Give the ball to Clarkson more?
Do you want Russell guarded by SGs instead of PGs? I'd rather give him the size advantage against PGs, but it's not like the other team isn't going to get the match up they want. The Lakers will try to get advantageous switches I'm sure, but the other team is going to at least start with the match ups they want.
Is that DLO's real hair in your avatar? Or did you photoshop that? _________________ "Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Russell should be a very dynamic scorer and passer especially on a team that will have to worry about Ingram at the same time. I still think it is a mistake for the Lakers to move forward with the idea that Russell is a PG where yes he can get the job done as a shot creator, ball handler, etc but I think its a damn waste of his talents.
At SG his ball handling, passing and court vision would be absolutely fantastic and paired with a PG worth a damn would give the Lakers a huge advantage in terms of shot creation especially with them already having a pair of high quality scorers in Ingram and Russell they'd also ensure they would be an out standing passing team and with that they'd almost ensure they would have a top 3-5 offense every year for a very long time if they keep them together.
Having that type of passing talent and with all the attention that Ingram and Russell will get from the defense it should make it possible for them to focus on defense first at C and PF moving forward when building out the rest of our roster long term.
This bodes well for Nance whom should work very nicely if not as a starting PF then certainly as an excellent rotation player giving us athletic ability, rebounding, high light dunks and such. I think he is a real keeper and if they can keep him in that role off the bench he will be in my opinion one of the better rotation players in the league.
Are you considering the size advantage he has at pg or defense? A bigger guard next to Russell makes us more versatile
What are you even arguing? Russell should play differently? Give the ball to Clarkson more?
Do you want Russell guarded by SGs instead of PGs? I'd rather give him the size advantage against PGs, but it's not like the other team isn't going to get the match up they want. The Lakers will try to get advantageous switches I'm sure, but the other team is going to at least start with the match ups they want.
Is that DLO's real hair in your avatar? Or did you photoshop that?
Would be all over the news if it was real. Why that gray-haired snitch!
What are you even arguing? Russell should play differently? Give the ball to Clarkson more?
Do you want Russell guarded by SGs instead of PGs? I'd rather give him the size advantage against PGs, but it's not like the other team isn't going to get the match up they want. The Lakers will try to get advantageous switches I'm sure, but the other team is going to at least start with the match ups they want.
Is that DLO's real hair in your avatar? Or did you photoshop that?
Would be all over the news if it was real. Why that gray-haired snitch!
Lol. Someone was saying DLO wouldn't have gotten so much flak if he had hair like T.J. McConnell or people wouldn't say he's so cocky or whatever. So a generous poster whipped up the image and I loved it so much I put it as my avatar. I think it's fantastic and I didn't want to forget it. I think it was ringfinger who did it, great post.
Does this mean the NBA recognizes DLo as a star or about to promote him as the next star of this franchise? The bubble head gesture and the ice in my veins sign could be Dlo's trademark celebration that fans are gonna imitate.
Does this mean the NBA recognizes DLo as a star or about to promote him as the next star of this franchise? The bubble head gesture and the ice in my veins sign could be Dlo's trademark celebration that fans are gonna imitate.
Maybe, but it also means they know how big the Lakers fan base is. And they realize how stupid it would be to not to include DLO (and his celebration) in an advertisement. If DLO played for a smaller market team, I'm not sure he would make the commercial. I'm glad they put his celebration in the game though!
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
George Hill averages 3.3 assists a game his entire career and had 3.5 assists per game last year.
Clarkson had that many assists per game in his rookie season on 11 less minutes played.
Last season while playing the 2 he had one assist less per game than George Hill whom played the 1 all year.
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
The bolded is based on the assumptions of what a "PG" does. Your characterization would seem to exclude "PGs" like Curry, WB, Lillard, etc., guys that DLO is more in line with than assist padders like Rondo.
DLO at the "PG" spot means he will have smaller guys defending him, and he's already making a living down on the block against them, where he will pick up ample FT attempts. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
The label of PG isn't as important as you seem to think. Very few people are arguing for Clarkson to be the lead guard and since he's the only other viable option, Russell is the PG. As far as building a team, why limit yourself to adding one position? Russell's versatility is an asset we can use. Get the best guard or wing you can and move players around accordingly. For example, if Paul George and George hill are both available, you get PG and Russ plays point but if Danny Green and Mike Conley were available you go Conley and develop Russell more off the ball. The NBA is becoming more and more position less just watch the Warriors. Curry is the pg but doesn't always bring the ball up. Green or Livingston or Igoudala often bring up the ball while they send Curry off screens. No need to pigeonhole Russell but with how the roster is currently assembled, he's the only viable option to be the starting point/lead guard.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144462 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:36 am Post subject:
MJST wrote:
BynumForThree wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
George Hill averages 3.3 assists a game his entire career and had 3.5 assists per game last year.
Clarkson had that many assists per game in his rookie season on 11 less minutes played.
Last season while playing the 2 he had one assist less per game than George Hill whom played the 1 all year.
I think that says it all.
Why are we discussing George Hill? Don't have him, don't want him. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Jordan Clarkson has more playmaking ability than George Hill. The PG vs SG debates are so perplexing to me as they don't make a lick of difference in a functional sense.
No he doesn't, there's no statistical evidence backing that up.
Russell has incredible upside if he gets to play SG where his ball handling and passing would be a tremendous advantage but if the Lakers continue to plan on keeping him at the PG spot then he goes from a fantastic advantage at SG with those ball skills, court vision, etc to really just being another PG in terms of his ball skills, court vision and ability to run an offense.
Yes his court vision and passing skills are still damn good even for a PG but while he does have those skills that are above average even for a PG but not all of his PG skills are up to par.
But as I mentioned earlier, I mainly mean this from a team-building standpoint and I've made that painfully obvious. If the team views Russell as an additional playmaker on the wing and looks to add a PG who can pass and shoot then we're going to have a top 5 offense between that PG/Russell/Ingram for years to come. If they're content with Russell being the "PG" of the team and look to add a 3-D SG alongside him then the upside isn't as high for us IMO.
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
I agree with your pretense that the Lakers need more playmaking, but disagree with your rigidity about where that should come from. Sure, it could come from another guard, but that's not the only option. Golden State had a historically great offense with a non-traditional PG and a non-playmaking SG. Cleveland, San Antonio, & Atlanta are all excellent teams/offenses without two playmakers in the backcourt as well. I'd argue that the teams who do fit that description are few & far between, and not necessarily amongst the best offenses in the NBA.
When Clarkson actually had the ball in his hands (2014-15) he posted what would have been the 2nd best assist & Asst% totals of George Hill's career, as a rookie in Byron Scott's offense. Clarkson also ranked in the 74th percentile (1.05 PPP) on Spot Ups last season, so I disagree with the idea that he can't shoot.
It would be stellar if Randle could be a strong playmaker for this team but I fear his capacity in that regard is somwhat exaggerated. Maybe once he fixed the shooting hole he will be balanced enough to do more. _________________ Austin Reaves keeps his game tight, like Kobe Bryant on game night.
Joined: 29 Aug 2004 Posts: 11197 Location: The Other Perspective
Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 8:26 pm Post subject:
BynumForThree wrote:
Clarkson isn't the answer. He's a guard who can't shoot, defend or run an offense. In the modern NBA that's not a high quality asset and probably limits his upside to a combo guard off the bench. I hope he proves me wrong and shows up with improved shooting and defensive impact but based off what he's shown he's not the compliment alongside Russell.
His shooting is getting better and he did a good job of running the offense as a rookie. Agreed about the defense though. That is the factor that could make or break his career. _________________ "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
two guards, two forwards and a bigman (that would have played forward in another era)
This is what basketball is now. We need to get over the PG concert and move on.
Russel
Clarkson
Ingram
Randle
Both guards are interchangeable as well as both forwards (as soon as Ingram bulks up and Randle starts knocking down his jumper)
You're looking at a very versitile roster in 3 years if everyone reache their potential.
Oh and any of them can handle the playmaking role at any given time. Randle was basically his teams PG in highschool and coach k praised Ingram for his ability to run point last season.
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
