LakersGround.net :: View topic - 2017 Lakers Draft Discussion Thread ** DRAFT DAY** (2: Ball, 27: Kuzma, 30: Hart and 42: Bryant )

2017 Lakers Draft Discussion Thread ** DRAFT DAY** (2: Ball, 27: Kuzma, 30: Hart and 42: Bryant )
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 441, 442, 443 ... 1279, 1280, 1281 Next

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge

View previous topic :: View next topic

Who you got after Fultz?

Lonzo Ball

75%

[ 315 ]

Josh Jackson

15%

[ 64 ]

Jayson Tatum

[ 8 ]

De'Aaron Fox

[ 20 ]

Malik Monk

[ 5 ]

Jonathan Isaac

[ 4 ]

Total Votes : 416

Author

Message

romeo
Starting Rotation

Joined: 15 Apr 2017
Posts: 300

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:17 am Post subject:

i know he doesnt have much skill and someone mentioned it earlier in the thread, but should we seriously consider with our 28th pick 7'6 giant tacko fall with his 8'4 wingspan. just think about fall playing off the bench behind zu in a couple years when ingram and the rest of the gang are in their mid 20s. think about the height mismatch, the post entry passes, the lobs, the offensive rebounds, the paint protection and help defense _________________ speak it into existence

Agramer
Starting Rotation

Joined: 10 Jul 2016
Posts: 133
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:26 am Post subject:

romeo wrote:

i know he doesnt have much skill and someone mentioned it earlier in the thread, but should we seriously consider with our 28th pick 7'6 giant tacko fall with his 8'4 wingspan. just think about fall playing off the bench behind zu in a couple years when ingram and the rest of the gang are in their mid 20s. think about the height mismatch, the post entry passes, the lobs, the offensive rebounds, the paint protection and help defense

why spend first round pick for a player that will be probably taken (if even then) mid-to-late second round and then spend years in D-league?

44TheLogo
Star Player

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:12 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

DangeRuss wrote:

fiendishoc wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

MJST wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

yinoma2001 wrote:

Yup.

This is why if we draft Ball or Fultz, and given our experience with DLO/Ingram, we need to have some modicum of patience. Hopefully the knives aren't drawn on them at SPL like they were for DLO.

I'd suspect that Fultz at #1 would be the least hated guy that we could draft, because it'd be the least controversial pick.

Drafting Lonzo and watching him learn how to run PnR and set up organized offense while Josh Jackson throws down a couple of highlight dunks in transition would make things fun around here.

I would assume that the thing that would "set people off" in the same way was if the Lakers got the first pick and drafted Jackson or Ball with it.

Yep. I learned this year that how good people feel about a player and who they wanted in the first place at that pick were one & the same.

This is why I think drafting Jackson (who I like) or Tatum (who I don't) over Ball at #2 (consensus) would have the most adverse forum consequences.

I'd be thrilled with Jackson. I like both him and ball more than Tatum though. I have to admit, I'd be fairly upset if they took Tatum at 3, but I couldn't complain because at least we actually kept the pick. Jackson or ball for me 100%

I think I'll be disappointed if we don't draft one of the Fultz/Ball/Jackson trio. 44theLogo might be able to talk me into Monk but I don't think so.

Nah I think Fultz/Ball/JJ are the clear top 3. I think Monk is #4 though.
_________________
substance over style

22
Franchise Player

Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:29 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

22 wrote:

GT what are your thoughts if Ball winds up in Philly with Simmons?

They'd be fun in transition but I don't really love his fit there. They need perimeter guys who can create their own shot and Ball isn't really that. I think Fultz is a much better fit there.

The Logo wrote:

22 wrote:

GT what are your thoughts if Ball winds up in Philly with Simmons?

I know you're not asking me, but I actually think this would be a potentially great fit, especially if Brown wants to try the Simmons at PG experiment. I see Ball as a great transition PG, but more of a play making SG in the half court.

Thanks fellas

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:35 am Post subject:

FWIW, I think DSJ is a little underrated.

44TheLogo
Star Player

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 8:52 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

FWIW, I think DSJ is a little underrated.

a bit of an undersized jamal crawford type imo.
_________________
substance over style

GoldenThroat
Moderator

Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:19 am Post subject:

44TheLogo wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

FWIW, I think DSJ is a little underrated.

a bit of an undersized jamal crawford type imo.

I think he has some PnR ability that Crawford didn't have. I don't think he's amazing or anything, but I do think he should be ahead of Fox.

44TheLogo
Star Player

Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 6364

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 11:31 am Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

44TheLogo wrote:

GoldenThroat wrote:

FWIW, I think DSJ is a little underrated.

a bit of an undersized jamal crawford type imo.

I think he has some PnR ability that Crawford didn't have. I don't think he's amazing or anything, but I do think he should be ahead of Fox.

i have trouble w/ fox because he's one of the few players in this draft who has a clear cut elite NBA tool in his top end speed. Fox might end up being similar to Jeremy Lin as far as a straight line speedster with inconsistent shooting, maybe Ty Lawson.

DSJ / is tough for me to evaluate because I'm not sure how much NC State's troubles as a program this year affected his season.

so basically i'm unsure for both of them but slightly more uncertain regarding DSJ and when i'm unsure of someone i downgrade their draft stock.
_________________
substance over style

iceberg01
Star Player

Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 2324
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:29 pm Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:

Quote:

I think you're confusing my "fit" point with a couple of things.

First, I'm just not a big fan of Tatum or Jackson, period. As for Tatum, second-tier athlete scorers just don't do it for me. Especially when they're not great shooters. So it's more that than anything. If I thought he was that great of a prospect, it'd be different. I get why you like him--he's polished. But say he's Carmelo Anthony: what does that get you exactly? So it's more than than anything. I'd rather take my chances with Ingram than either have a logjam with both. And I prefer Ingram over Tatum. And Jackson.

So here's my issue with your reasoning. You want the die-hard elite athlete, even if it takes a bit longer in the hopes of a home run franchise player.

But here I am, watching players like Paul George (definitely not LeBron tier athlete), James Harden (overweight SG out of ASU), and Stephen Curry (Dude is 14, right?) kick ass in the playoffs. Even Gordon Hayward isn't an elite athlete, but he's worth building around for his playmaking ability, and Utah isn't a contender, but it's not like they aren't 2 pieces away either.

Quote:

True. And you're absolutely right about what I want. All of those second tier (or less) athletes will eventually lose to Lebron James. The best and biggest athlete with the best skills becomes the most dominant player, and wins the championships. That formula holds true for the most part, and has held true throughout the history of the NBA. Michael Jordan. Shaq. Kobe. Magic. Kareem. Duncan. Now LeBron. All physical specimens who with the same work ethic as lesser athletes, became dominant. These second-tier athletes (like D-Lo) can be great second options. But they'll never be "the man". Ever. In my opinion. And sure, it's good to hit consistent doubles. But sometimes, in playing it "safe", you pass up on that home run. So yeah, it's a difference in philosophy.

Not to imply that Isaac is the man AT ALL. He's not a physical specimen (or even close) in the vein of the all-time greats. I'm really just speaking to the philosophy. But once upon a time, Kobe Bryant went 13th in the draft precisely because he wasn't as polished as Kerry Kittles or the other players in the draft. So there's a danger in going for "the most polished". A huge danger.

Quote:

Second, you're acting like Tatum and Jackson are CLEARLY better prospects than Smith, Isaac, etc. I don't agree. The truth is, both Jackson AND Tatum, have MAJOR problems, more so than Ingram:

I'm confident about what I've watched between all of those guys, especially in terms of the context of the season and how their styles changed. Ingram wasn't an elite athlete or a dynamic ball-handler, yet, you have NO problem basically giving him the keys to the franchise. Yet Tatum, a bit older than Ingram, but definitely a better team defensive player, Iso player, post player, and rebounder than Ingram at Duke and don't like his game because of his style of play.

But I think you're completely disregarding that Tatum played "modern NBA style" with Catch and shoot and playmaking in February, and he torched the 3-point nets.

I guess what especially kills me about this, is I'm choosing Tatum for the same reason I loved Ingram last year. Proven ability to improve during the regular season. It wasn't as dramatic as Ingram (who was a total deer in headlights at the beginning of his freshman season), but Tatum still had a transformational style change in his game too.

I guess the irony is, you think they have MUCH bigger issues than Ingram had at Duke, and I so completely disagree with that opinion. People are assuming that Ingram's last month of the season directly converts to the beginning of next season. That isn't always the case. People asked who I thought was better, back in February. Tatum was CLEARLY a better player than Ingram, nearly all season long.

My problem with this logic is, if hypothetically, we had a draft pick this year AND next year (which we don't), what's to stop you from drafting yet ANOTHER SF if he has the traits you desire? And another one? Why not draft a roster full of SF's??? By your logic, if the BPA is the same position as the top-3 pick you just picked--it's OK. Just keep drafting over the position of potential strength. Over and over and over.

Philly took a relatively unathletic but very polished guy in Okafor at #3 in 2015. How did work out for them? By the way, they passed up on the "less polished" Porzingis. And Devin Booker. Two players that would have both "fit" and filled a need. So it's not always about polish. It's about upside.

I just believe that if you draft a guy--especially at #2 overall--that means that you BELIEVE IN HIS TALENT. You DO NOT draft over him at the first sign of another guy who MIGHT be nearly as good. You COMMIT to him, and show him your commitment by NOT drafting other guys that play his position.... UNLESS you have a can't miss, once in a generation player like a Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Lebron James. And Tatum and Jackson are FAR from that.

In the absence of that, you stay the course with Ingram. Period.

Quote:

Tatum: not a great athlete, problems vs athletic SF's (of which there are plenty in the NBA);

Same said of Ingram last year too. Even Jabari Parker.

Quote:

Jackson: Could be a role-player on offense in the NBA--inconsistent form on his jumper, poor shot mechanics, poor shot creation. Also older than Ingram

So, grossly disagree. He changed his form midseason, shot 38.5% in January, 47.8% in February, and 40% in March on solid number of attempts behind the arc?

Poor shot creation? Dude created shots for his own point guard. Are you absolutely sure we're watching the same player? The guy is the best playmaker on the team for pete's sake.

I can buy poor shot mechanics, but I really think you missed a good chunk of games where he took out multiple hitches in his shot, and even started showing hints of an Iso midrange game late in the season.

I think you're misinterpreting what I mean by "poor shot creation". By that, I mean he's a poor shot creator for himself . To me, he has very little in the way of perimeter shot creation for himself, which forced him to go to the post, where he only had basic post moves. In the NBA, I just can't see him becoming an elite offensive player absent a LOT of work. Jackson, point blank, looks like an offensive role player to me. Do you REALLY take an offensive role player at #2 or #3 overall??

Quote:

Both are inferior prospects to Ingram, IMO.

If they were in the same draft, the only advantage Ingram had over both guys was being 1 year younger, that's it.

Quote:

Ok. Well, that's an advantage. But there's more. Ingram has the superior wingspan by a country mile over both: 7'3" vs 6'9" for Jackson: 6'11" for Tatum. But I won't belabor the point.

Quote:

Third, all of the players that you're bringing up with the Lakers, Patterson, NVE... all SECOND ROUNDERS, or late 1st at best! I'd draft a SF in a NY minute in the 2nd, or with the late 1st. Clearly they're meant to be backups, and if they evolve into anything else, great. But you just don't draft what I consider lesser players with a top-3 pick when you have a player at that position. Its almost like wasting the pick.

The Lakers hit on BPAs regardless of draft choice. The biggest reason why I REALLY REALLY hate "drafting for fit" is because I think it cost the Lakers a championship in 2004 and 2005, and possibly the relationship between Shaq and Bryant.

What, we couldn't have used Carlos Boozer off the bench? But no, let's "Draft for fit and get Chris Jefferies." How did his career turn out?

I don't buy any of it. The best part of the 80s Laker team is, everyone had their chance to shine. Kareem was a #1 option. Then Worthy. Then Scott. The Lakers once replenished their talent continuously with BPAs. ONce it was draft for fit, it all went out the window.

Quote:

Just not getting inferior players at a spot we JUST drafted a kid at to develop in.

2002. Carlos Boozer? Or Chris Jefferies?
2003. Leandro Barbosa? Or Brian Cook?

I think it makes a point that those "fit" players didn't even have the talent to stick in the league long, even when the system catered to their talents.

Hence, the BPA mentality.

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 1:32 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If they're that talented, why not put them all on the floor? Why not have Ingram/Tatum at PF/SF and switch with a 3rd SF playing hypothetical SG?

I don't care about the positions too much really. If they're the best guys on the floor and have the best positive net +/-, it doesn't matter.

I mean really, Milwaukee didn't care with Giannis, who went from PF to SF, kept Jabari at PF anyway, and still drafted Thon Maker, who is a PF/SF.

The difference is the skill set/role. I don't see Tatum/Ingram playing similar roles at all. If (by freak reason), the Lakers land Luka Doncic (who is basically a SF, but elitely skilled and just a "good athlete"), you bet your tail I would play Doncic next to Tatum and Ingram and start Doncic at PG because I think he's THAT legit.

Quote:

Philly took a relatively unathletic but very polished guy in Okafor at #3 in 2015. How did work out for them? By the way, they passed up on the "less polished" Porzingis. And Devin Booker. Two players that would have both "fit" and filled a need. So it's not always about polish. It's about upside.

Funny. Okafor's problem isn't even athleticism. It's motor/work ethic. Porzingis and Devin Booker killed their workouts, especially in front of the Lakers and other Pre-Draft workout coaches. Booker especially played alongside Russell and KAT. Are you mad the Lakers took Russell instead of Booker now?

Quote:

I just believe that if you draft a guy--especially at #2 overall--that means that you BELIEVE IN HIS TALENT. You DO NOT draft over him at the first sign of another guy who MIGHT be nearly as good. You COMMIT to him, and show him your commitment by NOT drafting other guys that play his position.... UNLESS you have a can't miss, once in a generation player like a Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Lebron James. And Tatum and Jackson are FAR from that.

I believe if you're a draft guy, your commitment is to the TEAM and not the PLAYER, unless the PLAYER shows that they're worth it.

Using your logic, teams would have been build around Darius Miles, Eddy Curry, Marcus Fizer, Kwame Brown, Anthony Bennett, etc. The problem is, franchise talent/All-Star talent at the top is not guaranteed. Every draft class is different. One draft class may have 4 bonafide HOFs in the top 5. The next 3 may have ZERO.

None of the Lakers have shown they're worth it. Guys like Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, LeBron, etc., all have. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference in talent/skill set/size combination.

Quote:

Jackson, point blank, looks like an offensive role player to me. Do you REALLY take an offensive role player at #2 or #3 overall??

I wonder what you would have thought of Tracy McGrady out of HS, because worse than Jackson, he lacked range outside of 15', was mostly a straight-line driver, and had minimal effort on defense. I guess he was just an offensive role player too?
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 2:58 pm Post subject:

Thon is a PF who projected to play Center in this era, and he's played mostly Center for the Bucks. I'm pretty surprised becuase I didn't think he'd be able to play C for a couple years - compare that to Porzingis - Thon proves that motor and quickness can help you play up a position. I guess that gives hope for Ingram at PF one day Doncic is a SG. 6'7 great ball handler with average quickness for that position, that's a SG, Evan Turner was kinda similar but completely worse. Luka won't have the measurables to be considered a straight SF, he looks kinda scrunched and not long - looks like either wingspan or reach are short. Won't be an issue for him bcuz height and skill

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:09 pm Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:

FWIW, I think DSJ is a little underrated.

I have a feeling he was dogging it quickness/motor wise all year, bcuz he didn't want another injury on that knee - wanted to get to the money first.
I can't be confident in him, but there's a chance he's really good at the next level

I've never seen such a leaper be so not quick.......

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:32 pm Post subject:

KeepItRealOrElse wrote:

Thon is a PF who projected to play Center in this era, and he's played mostly Center for the Bucks. I'm pretty surprised becuase I didn't think he'd be able to play C for a couple years - compare that to Porzingis - Thon proves that motor and quickness can help you play up a position. I guess that gives hope for Ingram at PF one day

Doncic is a SG. 6'7 great ball handler with average quickness for that position, that's a SG, Evan Turner was kinda similar but completely worse. Luka won't have the measurables to be considered a straight SF, he looks kinda scrunched and not long - looks like either wingspan or reach are short. Won't be an issue for him bcuz height and skill

Thon is a PF that is getting away with playing C because of motor, not because he has the strength to do so. But technically, Milwaukee drafted 3 PFs in a row, and even with Greg Monroe at C, they still took him. Goes back to my philosophy about adding depth and drafting BPA, and also how skill set is completely different between Antetokounmpo, Parker, and Parker.

As for Doncic, Evan Turner was a SG, but plays more SF nowadays anyway. Personally, I think Turner had an outside shot of developing PG skills. Luka is even better. He's too slow to play SG at the NBA level, so like Turner, I'd expect him to move to SF at the NBA level.

But if the skills are THAT good, just keep the elite size by position and let them play the archetype that they're used to playing point forward or point guard anyway.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

iceberg01
Star Player

Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 2324
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:33 pm Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:

Quote:

The problem with that is that you're not really building a TEAM: you're just collecting bodies. And you won't win many games. Neither Ingram nor Tatum can play the 4 for long stretches without causing some damage to the team. And meanwhile, other teams around the league know you have a logjam at the position, so you can't get decent trade value for the ultimate odd man out.

Quote:

Partially disagree. Lack of athleticism, no matter how you slice it, is a problem. In a league of professional athletes, if two players have equal skill, but one is a better athlete, the better athlete has the advantage. You just can't take it out of the equation. And yeah, part of the reason Okafor isn't the defender he should be is because he's slow as dirt off the ground, and in general. Yes, he can improve, but he'll never potentially be a top-flight defender because of his athletic limitations.

Quote:

So in other words, you think Ingram is a bust after one year? At age 19. I personally think he showed enough in the final quarter of the season that he looks like he could be SOMETHING. And possibly something special. Hard to believe your opinion has changed so much after just one year on Ingram.

Quote:

Jackson, point blank, looks like an offensive role player to me. Do you REALLY take an offensive role player at #2 or #3 overall??

[/quote]
If Tracy McGrady was 20 years old with those problems, I'd be concerned. But age matters. Which is why I like Ingram over Jackson.

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:37 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Get the player to build around, then you can build a team. In the mean time, may as well collect the assets first to acquire a franchise player to build around in the first place.

Quote:

If Tracy McGrady was 20 years old with those problems, I'd be concerned. But age matters.

McGrady was that guy at age 20. You can argue level of competition, but Josh Jackson and McGrady were actually putting up similar numbers.

~15ppg
~6-7rpg
~3apg

One awesome off-season of jumpshooting later... you get Orlando's Tracy McGrady.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mcgratr01.html

http://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/josh-jackson-2.html

Quote:

No, I don't think he's a bust at all. I just don't think he showed anything but a small sample size of legitimacy.

This isn't like when Kobe Bryant in his 2nd year and showed multiple scoring outbursts since the beginning of the season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bryanko01/gamelog/1998

Quote:

Being less skilled is more of a problem. How did Andre Roberson do? I'd even argue effectiveness of athleticism at C, only because Nurkic, Jokic, Gasol aren't exactly the most elite athletes out there, and even Plumlee is a clearly better athlete, but the effect on the court is so overwhelmingly positive in their favor.

All that athleticism DeAndre Jordan has and Utah is giving them serious fits. Gobert played what, half of the series? And while he's a good athlete, he's not on DJ's level.

Skills don't easily go away. Athleticism, over time, does.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

Last edited by Mike@LG on Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:44 pm; edited 2 times in total

Drifts
Retired Number

Joined: 22 Nov 2004
Posts: 28374

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:41 pm Post subject:

I like Jackson better, but drafting ball would have it's advantages... with Ball, Lakers finally drafts a point guard who knows how to play the position the right way. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:50 pm Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:

KeepItRealOrElse wrote:

He'll be able to play either wing position. I think he'll look/be small at SF because of lack of length, and he's not quick for a SG - although quicker than DLo by position.

It's not cut/dry that you can work in a BPA loaded position - look at Nurkic/Jokic - they're not versatile positionally. With the Bucks.. they drafted versatile players positionally, albeit all PFs. Tatum is much less versatile positionally than them. If you're thinking about giving him good minutes at PF, I think he falls into the *Melo, George, Bron* category of SFs who really don't like that beating at PF. Same with Ingram.

It's not cut/dry

AuraStar
Starting Rotation

Joined: 23 Jun 2001
Posts: 657

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:53 pm Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:

22 wrote:

I got a feeling Ball will wind up in Philly. Ball & Simmons running the team could be interesting or disastrous

His dad's act...that don't play in Philly. Will get run out of there...

You know, I'm getting tired of Lonzo and his dad. I mean, everyday I see another article about how Ball wants like to play with Lakers. Well, maybe Ball will turn out to be a good NBA player, but there are also other college players who would love to play for the Lakers and whom the Lakers should consider.
_________________
“Love is the force that ignites the spirit and binds teams together.” - Phil Jackson

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:07 pm Post subject:

Quote:

It's not cut/dry that you can work in a BPA loaded position - look at Nurkic/Jokic - they're not versatile positionally. With the Bucks.. they drafted versatile players positionally, albeit all PFs. Tatum is much less versatile positionally than them. If you're thinking about giving him good minutes at PF, I think he falls into the *Melo, George, Bron* category of SFs who really don't like that beating at PF. Same with Ingram.

The thing with the Nuggets, wherever they drafted, Nurkic and Jokic were wins. I think Vecenie said in a podcast that the Nuggets made a trade, basically their lottery pick (ended up Doug McDermott), that turned into 2 1st rounders in Nurkic and Gary Harris, so that trade ended up being a steal. Even with Nurkic traded, it's still Plumlee and Harris.

Nuggets still came out way ahead. It also shows that if a team does their homework, you can see how quickly the talent levels out, even in the lottery down into the mid/late 1st round.

So in the end, it's Jokic (dude is a stud, I don't even care), Plumlee (perfect contrast to Jokic with rim running and finishing), and Gary Harris, the perfect 8th man guard.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:11 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Tatum is much less versatile positionally than them. If you're thinking about giving him good minutes at PF, I think he falls into the *Melo, George, Bron* category of SFs who really don't like that beating at PF. Same with Ingram.

It's difficult for me to explain, but I don't really see it that way. I think that it's assumed that "guys don't like a beating at PF" yet over time, the Lakers have made a history of it, whether it's Robert Horry or Lamar Odom transitioning from 220lb SFs into 245lb PFs. I think Tatum is that type of tweener forward, just like Harrison Barnes, just with a unique skill set. Ingram, I think of as a triple threat slasher type, but both guys operate in different spaces on the floor.

I also think that if Vecenie and DX speak so highly about Tatum's work ethic, he can play into a completely different archetype anyway and turn himself into an NBA stud.

Jabari Parker was obviously a bigger guy out of Duke around 240, but I don't see why Tatum couldn't play his role exactly. Even the doubts about athleticism between Parker and Tatum are similar.

I guess in my "dream hypothetical world" of NBA roster/positions, I'd ideally have 2 big triple threat PGs, 2 SFs of different skill types, and a C that could anchor, pass, and shoot from range. Since the NBA is going away from physical play and more into open court play, I kind of don't see how this is too much different from Worthy playing PF during his rookie year.

The only difference really, is the idea that Tatum would just burn PFs in the halfcourt set as a go-to option, if the offensive play just totally breaks down.

I even understand people wanting Josh Jackson over Tatum. He's definitely easier on the eye. But, I always pick the guy with the work ethic. So far, in that department, it looks like Tatum > Jackson.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

Last edited by Mike@LG on Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:16 pm; edited 1 time in total

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:14 pm Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:

Quote:

That original draft trade is fine, but it still isn't exactly relevant to the actual issue here - high draft picks who are not positionally versatile can't play together. And you want your high picks to play together

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:17 pm Post subject:

^See above. _________________ Resident Car Nut. https://lakersdraft.substack.com/ I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:25 pm Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:

Quote:

Odom and Horry were both near 6'11 though, even in the last gen of hoops you didn't see 6'11 SFs...

If Tatum had a better body, I'd be for drafting him and giving him 20mpg at PF. But the dude's lower body is skinny, he's top heavy only 205lbs last year. Barnes was more muscular. I just can't be confident that Tatum isn't going to have Paul George's hesitancy of playing PF, the guy who you compared him to. Tatum has wider shoulders but I think they both have wing strength

Mike@LG
Moderator

Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:30 pm Post subject:

Quote:

I guess I'm just not phased by NBA size as much as I used to with the modern NBA. Yeah, Barnes was a stronger player, but was never thought of as a defensive player coming out of North Carolina.

Josh Jackson, I'm actually, more discouraged of, because he's been the same weight since he was 17, nevermind some of the people he spent time with last season that led to some trouble.

But all of this is predicated on the Lakers playing defense, let alone being good at it. I'm not even thinking that far ahead. The philosophy is still BPA. I'm even aware that Tatum is #4 on most guys lists except mine and Vecenie, but just believe so strongly in work ethic regardless of size limitations or athleticism, that I don't care. I didn't even care about Ingram's weight because I trusted his work ethic too.

So, for me, the worst case scenario is 2 young, hardworking PF/SF types with different skill sets and have shown the ability to pass and have some concept of team defense?

I could do a lot worse for Top 3, especially if Fultz/Ball are gone.

I'm also just not as convinced yet about Josh Jackson, which is why I'm playing a heavy emphasis on workouts and interviews.

I want to know their approach to the game, how serious they are about it, how the have a passion/love for it. Because to me, even when DLO and Randle have shown improvement over the past two years, it didn't look anywhere near as transformative as Ingram in the last month.

I want THAT guy.

I mean, we talk about Ingram working with Kobe and getting his footwork done with a cleaner, more consistent form on his shot.

I just imagine Tatum, who I think has a far better jumpshot, especially off the dribble, learning from Bryant as well. All of a sudden, I don't think we're talking about Tobias Harris or Rudy Gay at 20ppg. I think we would see a 25+ppg guy with the idea that he can still become that stud catch and shoot/lightweight playmaker too. This is why I think of Paul George touches, especially when I compare their scoring games back to back. Then, he's a stud asset on the Lakers, or, the Lakers can actually think about building around him.

The big holes in Harris' and Gay's skill set out of college was, they didn't have Tatum's elite Iso or post PPP. Straight line drives and foundation for 3pt. shooting? Sure.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.

https://lakersdraft.substack.com/

I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans.

Last edited by Mike@LG on Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

KeepItRealOrElse
Retired Number

Joined: 11 Oct 2012
Posts: 32767

Posted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 4:39 pm Post subject:

I actually respect that perspective of not being phased by weight/size in this modern NBA, there's credence to it. There's definetely a world where Tatum could get a lot of minutes at PF in year 3, no doubt about it. His body isn't horribly underdeveloped, he could hit 220lbs in a couple years. I'm open to considering him at 3. I do like his game that much, and I actually think highly of Hanlen as a trainer. He's worked hard with Clarkson and Beal on defense - and idk about Beal but Clarkson showed some improvement, and he's at a horrible physical deficit at SG, 6'4 with a pathetic reach, I'd never expect that to be a really good defender unless the guy is just a dog Also impressed with how Wiggins, Beal, Clarkson all improved their handles. Tatum probably has the highest scoring upside in the draft to me.

Display posts from previous:

LakersGround.net Forum Index -> LA Lakers Lounge

All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 441, 442, 443 ... 1279, 1280, 1281 Next

Page 442 of 1281

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

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.