I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
This also omits perhaps Simmons' best attribute, which is his passing.
I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
This also omits perhaps Simmons' best attribute, which is his passing.
I also think he would be a better defender because of his length and better at blocking/changing shots.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144462 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:42 pm Post subject:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
Slash&Splash wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Laker's Fan wrote:
I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
Maybe compare their teams too? One led his team to the NCAA title game, one might not win his conference. Or do you believe in comparing apples and oranges? Randle has shown what he can do in the NBA, and is just getting started. The Lakers won't be trading him anytime soon unless it is a can't miss deal. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144462 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:43 pm Post subject:
Megaton wrote:
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
If we keep the pick it would be the best trade asset we have, the FO will look into that value it can bring in return. If it doesn't bring much value, then they will draft who they want. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
With the proper coaching, they'll both become much better shooters. It's about muscle memory and reps. Both of them have a great work ethic, so it's a very fixable mechanical issue.
Last edited by AC Green's V-Card on Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144462 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:44 pm Post subject:
Russell1 wrote:
Megaton wrote:
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
Ever head of players improving? Or do you honestly think that if they can't shoot today they never will? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
Maybe compare their teams too? One led his team to the NCAA title game, one might not win his conference. Or do you believe in comparing apples and oranges? Randle has shown what he can do in the NBA, and is just getting started. The Lakers won't be trading him anytime soon unless it is a can't miss deal.
Is your thesis that Randle shot worse because he had better teammates? Are you saying that Simmons wouldn't have excelled with the players and coaching around Randle at Kentucky? What does team wins in college have to do with statistical double-doubles at the next level?
Player comparisons will never have the exact same variables. This is why you control for things like number of possessions and per 40 totals.
I haven't seen much of Simmons (any actually). How would he and Randle fit as starting forwards?
0 shooting.
But one would have to come off the bench. I would bring Simmons off the bench initially ala Odom.
Yeah, spacing nightmare. If we draft Simmons, we'll have to trade Randle sooner or later.
Or since you see what you have with Randle, trade Simmons. I strongly doubt Simmons averages a double double his first season.
Let's compare Randle and Simmons freshman numbers (Per 40).
Points: BS - 22.7
Points: JR - 19.4
FG%: BS - 56.4%
FG%: JR - 50.1%
2PFG%: BS - 56.7%
2PFG%: JR - 51.7%
FTA: BS - 9.7
FTA: JR - 9.4
TRB: BS - 14.5
TRB: JR - 13.5
TRB%: BS - 19.2%
TRB%: JR - 19.2%
USG%: BS - 26.3%
USG%: BS - 25.4%
So Simmons bests Randle in nearly every category (except a tie in TRB%), with only 0.9% higher usage. If Simmons gets the same number of minutes as Randle, why can't he average a double-double also?
Maybe compare their teams too? One led his team to the NCAA title game, one might not win his conference. Or do you believe in comparing apples and oranges? Randle has shown what he can do in the NBA, and is just getting started. The Lakers won't be trading him anytime soon unless it is a can't miss deal.
He can rebound. What else has he shown?
Kentucky was bad that year and then they got hot in the tourney. They had a bunch of talent. WCS got hurt but the Harrison twins played well in the tourny, so did young, and a few other guys
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
Right, because they will never improve at that area right? Just like how Mike Conley is still a guy that can't make a shot outside 15 feet if his life depended on it in College as well. Or how Trevor Ariza will always just be a guy that can only dunk once and a while and still be that crap shooter from the Knicks and the Magic.
Players are not who they are in college or their first year in the NBA people. They improve, they "develop". Simmons will improve on his shot just like Randle will. Just like Russell will, just like Clarkson.
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
Right, because they will never improve at that area right? Just like how Mike Conley is still a guy that can't make a shot outside 15 feet if his life depended on it in College as well. Or how Trevor Ariza will always just be a guy that can only dunk once and a while and still be that crap shooter from the Knicks and the Magic.
Players are not who they are in college or their first year in the NBA people. They improve, they "develop". Simmons will improve on his shot just like Randle will. Just like Russell will, just like Clarkson.
The skills and physical attributes that they do have however, are something that can't be taught or are not easy to improve. Shooting however, is very correctable.
They can improve. Randle hasn't yet. If we have both and both have not improved yet, why would you start both? How productive would that be? It would be ok if the team still doesn't care to win, but if they are trying to win, they are better off bringing one off the bench while they improve their range. It is not a given that one or both develop range and a jump shot, there are many cases over the years where it doesn't happen.
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
Right, because they will never improve at that area right? Just like how Mike Conley is still a guy that can't make a shot outside 15 feet if his life depended on it in College as well. Or how Trevor Ariza will always just be a guy that can only dunk once and a while and still be that crap shooter from the Knicks and the Magic.
Players are not who they are in college or their first year in the NBA people. They improve, they "develop". Simmons will improve on his shot just like Randle will. Just like Russell will, just like Clarkson.
The skills and physical attributes that they do have however, are something that can't be taught or are not easy to improve. Shooting however, is very correctable.
They can improve. Randle hasn't yet. If we have both and both have not improved yet, why would you start both? How productive would that be? It would be ok if the team still doesn't care to win, but if they are trying to win, they are better off bringing one off the bench while they improve their range. It is not a given that one or both develop range and a jump shot, there are many cases over the years where it doesn't happen.
Key word in bold. And it is actually improving. We have seen already Randle making more outside jumpers. Especially when you compare it at the beginning.
As for the question? Because development, because team chemistry. That's what having a future young core is all about. How productive? They might struggle at first. But so what? Are we winning a title next season? Not likely. So what's the problem?
We can try to win while still develop players. Its happened before and can easily happen again. It just comes down to how hard the players work for it, and a good coach. Simple as that.
You're right on that. It's not a given, but I would absolutely put my chips on the table for it and let it ride anyway. Because 1. There aren't any great alternatives unless we signed Durant which is a long shot. And 2, we are rebuilding, so building that chemistry and getting the players accustomed to their roles as soon as possible should take absolute priority in a rebuilding team. It's nothing like the Lakers in 1996 where we literally had an all star backcourt starting over Kobe or anything like that. There is nothing else we would have logically starting over Simmons except for someone like Durant. _________________ Darvin Scam: https://media.tenor.com/images/3c15249955860a4b16b59e8ae035fb75/tenor.gif
Or we could just keep both and they both start so that they can develop both as individuals and team chemistry?
I mean, that is a thing right?
Not if both of them can't shoot.
Right, because they will never improve at that area right? Just like how Mike Conley is still a guy that can't make a shot outside 15 feet if his life depended on it in College as well. Or how Trevor Ariza will always just be a guy that can only dunk once and a while and still be that crap shooter from the Knicks and the Magic.
Players are not who they are in college or their first year in the NBA people. They improve, they "develop". Simmons will improve on his shot just like Randle will. Just like Russell will, just like Clarkson.
The skills and physical attributes that they do have however, are something that can't be taught or are not easy to improve. Shooting however, is very correctable.
They can improve. Randle hasn't yet. If we have both and both have not improved yet, why would you start both? How productive would that be? It would be ok if the team still doesn't care to win, but if they are trying to win, they are better off bringing one off the bench while they improve their range. It is not a given that one or both develop range and a jump shot, there are many cases over the years where it doesn't happen.
Key word in bold. And it is actually improving. We have seen already Randle making more outside jumpers. Especially when you compare it at the beginning.
As for the question? Because development, because team chemistry. That's what having a future young core is all about. How productive? They might struggle at first. But so what? Are we winning a title next season? Not likely. So what's the problem?
We can try to win while still develop players. Its happened before and can easily happen again. It just comes down to how hard the players work for it, and a good coach. Simple as that.
You're right on that. It's not a given, but I would absolutely put my chips on the table for it and let it ride anyway. Because 1. There aren't any great alternatives unless we signed Durant which is a long shot. And 2, we are rebuilding, so building that chemistry and getting the players accustomed to their roles as soon as possible should take absolute priority in a rebuilding team. It's nothing like the Lakers in 1996 where we literally had an all star backcourt starting over Kobe or anything like that. There is nothing else we would have logically starting over Simmons except for someone like Durant.
They don't both have to start to develop team chemistry. It is better to have a 3 and D SF next to one of them in the starting linu up. Just because a team has a bunch of young players doesn't mean they all have to start. Starting has nothing to do with development, it is all about minutes and if the player improves from the work he is putting in
Simmons could play Draymond green role if we get him. His passing is way better.
I'd probably go whiteside/simmons/kd/derozan/dlo
Just probably, huh?
Lol yea. Probably go luke walton as hc too
I know the feels, so many options this is just one iteration. I would probably be ok with this as well if it happened. But lets wait and see what else we can get.
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
