Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:41 am Post subject:
oldschool32 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
oldschool32 wrote:
I really think Lonzo's athleticism is underrated. By no means do I think he is an elite athlete, but I think he's definitely above average. I see good speed, and he definitely can get vertical when needed. He doesn't necessarily have the pop where he can get off the floor quick and be above the rim like a Westbrook/Wall etc, but he definitely has a nice foundation to build off of.
I think Lonzo's best athletic trait is speed in transition.
But don't ask about finishing with authority off the dribble or initial first step.
I agree with that. But I think he has the tools there, and it's possible that the staff will get him to try and finish strong instead of the soft acrobatic layups like they did Ingram. Either way, I think his athleticism is definitely underrated. Speaking of his first step, with the physical tools he has, you would think it would be better. We'll see if nba training and improving his level of ball handling will help.
Yup. This is right in line with my idea of saying that Ball has a lot of things to work on. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Ingram will be that guy, the go to guy who can physically imposed his will and dominate. And I've seen enough flashes of it and he's not even quite there physically.
Lonzo will set the pace offensively. He will let guys like Ingram to play to their strengths and give the ball to their sweet spots. Those guys you mentioned are not even better than Dlo. And I ain't even mentioning Zu who showed a lot of promise.
Fultz is clearly better as a prospect than everyone that has been drafted onto the Lakers since 1996. Fultz > DAR.
You're banking on Ingram's talent, and I can understand why. Just, we have zero foundation to believe in it. Straight line driving out of triple threat is just one small aspect of an overall offensive package.
It also tells me, you're already comfortable with Ingram as a #1 option. I definitely am not.
Wait if Fultz is the consensus #1 pick then how are we getting Fultz again? what has Fultz shown that makes you able to bank on him as oppose to Bynum, Russell, Randle, and Ingram? What data do you have to show us that Fultz > DAR?
We're not getting Fultz, but the prior poster stated to me, that all of the guys that I mentioned in the draft aren't even at DAR's level. Just, totally disagree.
What has Fultz shown? His only real weakness is off-ball defense. Like, do you want eye test things or data things? Because Fultz has done both, and there's plenty of highlight reels to show what Fultz did vs. what DAR did at the NCAA level.
Oh okay, I was wondering how the argument for Fultz came about. You also made a bold statement about Fultz being better than anybody we've ever drafted since '96 wow, that's a bold statement, I think Bynum was a better prospect. And I don't buy into Fultz > DAR not after seeing this
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:44 am Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
oldschool32 wrote:
I really think Lonzo's athleticism is underrated. By no means do I think he is an elite athlete, but I think he's definitely above average. I see good speed, and he definitely can get vertical when needed. He doesn't necessarily have the pop where he can get off the floor quick and be above the rim like a Westbrook/Wall etc, but he definitely has a nice foundation to build off of.
I think Lonzo's best athletic trait is speed in transition.
But don't ask about finishing with authority off the dribble or initial first step.
Fultz doesn't have a quick first step either. He just has better ball-handling and body control. I actually think they are comparable athletes. Fultz bigger hands and stronger frame at this point.
Watch the gear shift after he crosses half court on the first play. Another thing you notice is that he often dunks when his final dribble is outside of the three point line.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:46 am Post subject:
Quote:
I think Bynum was a better prospect
Not even close. Bynum didn't exactly have glowing basketball workouts. He was 20lbs. overweight, missing midrange jumpers, and was just athletic clay. The dude had a problem just spending so much time gathering up for dunks. He always brought the ball down until he finally got the strength.
By far, he was the riskiest guy in the Lakers drafted in the lottery with the most holes in his game. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Ingram will be that guy, the go to guy who can physically imposed his will and dominate. And I've seen enough flashes of it and he's not even quite there physically.
Lonzo will set the pace offensively. He will let guys like Ingram to play to their strengths and give the ball to their sweet spots. Those guys you mentioned are not even better than Dlo. And I ain't even mentioning Zu who showed a lot of promise.
Fultz is clearly better as a prospect than everyone that has been drafted onto the Lakers since 1996. Fultz > DAR.
You're banking on Ingram's talent, and I can understand why. Just, we have zero foundation to believe in it. Straight line driving out of triple threat is just one small aspect of an overall offensive package.
It also tells me, you're already comfortable with Ingram as a #1 option. I definitely am not.
You see straight line drive. I see a guy who can cross over and put an elbow jumper. I see a guy who can reverse it with his off hand. I see a guy with a spin move and finger rolls it. I also see a guy with a work ethic and most likely evolve if he continue to work hard.
And the shot caller who has a better closer look saw it too.
So, you understand why I like Tatum, based on work ethic right?
Also, those are still very small moves compared to what is required to be a legit #1 option at the NBA level. We're just lucky that Ingram can get by because he has the physical tools to accent those skills.
I do understand why you like Tatum. He is also more polished than Ingram. But his physical tools is not intriguing. It's self limiting but who knows, work ethic will often surprised most even the so called experts.
We have different take on Ingram. He's not a finished product yet to me. He already has some stuffs that can make him a legit number 1 option and likes contacts to boot and he has not fully develop yet physically. His work ethic is also not in question.
Not even close. Bynum didn't exactly have glowing basketball workouts. He was 20lbs. overweight, missing midrange jumpers, and was just athletic clay. The dude had a problem just spending so much time gathering up for dunks. He always brought the ball down until he finally got the strength.
By far, he was the riskiest guy in the Lakers drafted in the lottery with the most holes in his game.
Bynum became an all star. You also didn't address the rest of my post. _________________ My Dream Starting 5 next Season
Despite all these perceived weaknesses, he elevated UCLA to one of the best offenses in the last decade. That shows that the summation of his strengths far exceed his weaknesses. I can't imagine how good his team will be if he fixes those weaknesses. People talk about fast-twitch athletes, Lonzo is a fast-twitch decision maker who makes the right play the vast majority of the time. If you are a believer in advanced stats offensively and defensively, then the future is really bright. Time will tell.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:52 am Post subject:
Quote:
But his physical tools is not intriguing. It's self limiting but who knows, work ethic will often surprised most even the so called experts.
We have different take on Ingram. He's not a finished product yet to me. He already has some stuffs that can make him a legit number 1 option and likes contacts to boot and he has not fully develop yet physically. His work ethic is also not in question.
I think of it this way. If they were both in the draft and a person didn't have the advantage of hindsight, they would arguably be in the same draft spot.
Tatum is by far so ahead of Ingram across the board. We talk about Ingram at point forward at his whopping 2apg for Duke, yet Tatum did the same thing and has the Iso King narrative. In terms of skills, IMHO, it's not close.
Then there's Ingram who has age and physical tools to his advantage. It just depends on what is prioritized.
But when guys like Tatum line up similarly (as said on a Vecenie podcast with Cole) to Gordon Hayward, Paul Pierce, and Joe Johnson. I flat out want THAT guy. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
I really think Lonzo's athleticism is underrated. By no means do I think he is an elite athlete, but I think he's definitely above average. I see good speed, and he definitely can get vertical when needed. He doesn't necessarily have the pop where he can get off the floor quick and be above the rim like a Westbrook/Wall etc, but he definitely has a nice foundation to build off of.
I think Lonzo's best athletic trait is speed in transition.
But don't ask about finishing with authority off the dribble or initial first step.
Fultz doesn't have a quick first step either. He just has better ball-handling and body control. I actually think they are comparable athletes. Fultz bigger hands and stronger frame at this point.
Watch the gear shift after he crosses half court on the first play. Another thing you notice is that he often dunks when his final dribble is outside of the three point line.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:54 am Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
Despite all these perceived weaknesses, he elevated UCLA to one of the best offenses in the last decade. That shows that the summation of his strengths far exceed his weaknesses. I can't imagine how good his team will be if he fixes those weaknesses. People talk about fast-twitch athletes, Lonzo is a fast-twitch decision maker who makes the right play the vast majority of the time. If you are a believer in advanced stats offensively and defensively, then the future is really bright. Time will tell.
And that's why he has a higher upside than the rest of the guys from #2 to #7. That doesn't mean he doesn't have a lot to work on, and IMHO, more than most compared to the other prospects. That's all. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 10:54 am Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
oldschool32 wrote:
I really think Lonzo's athleticism is underrated. By no means do I think he is an elite athlete, but I think he's definitely above average. I see good speed, and he definitely can get vertical when needed. He doesn't necessarily have the pop where he can get off the floor quick and be above the rim like a Westbrook/Wall etc, but he definitely has a nice foundation to build off of.
I think Lonzo's best athletic trait is speed in transition.
But don't ask about finishing with authority off the dribble or initial first step.
Fultz doesn't have a quick first step either. He just has better ball-handling and body control. I actually think they are comparable athletes. Fultz bigger hands and stronger frame at this point.
Watch the gear shift after he crosses half court on the first play. Another thing you notice is that he often dunks when his final dribble is outside of the three point line.
That is some AAU level defense.
That's some NBA level athleticism at PG. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Magic, Kidd, and Stockton never had "shake" either. He is efficient with his handle. Sure I'd like him to have Kobe's ball-handling but that is not always the most efficient for the offense.
I think he will improve but he will never be like the Professor.
1. Magic didn't need shake. PGs were even smaller back then, and Magic had a 56.5% FTr out of Michigan St.
2. Kidd was a different tier athlete. Attacked the basket often. 48%FTr
3. John Stockton was a pick and roll maestro. Lonzo Ball, currently, is not. Despite being considerably smaller, he was physical for a PG. 47%FTr.
Lonzo Ball is a guy that loves transition and likes playing in space. That's where his game thrives. He doesn't really bump guys when he drives. He doesn't have a great first step but has a high top speed, so he needs to go downhill to be aggressive at the hoop.
The point is you don't need shake. It's nice to have but sometimes makes you a less efficient player that stops ball movement. Just look at CP3. Even Kobe had that problem. LeBron, more efficient in his moves/movement, less shake on his dribble.
Ball has no reason to not have a higher FTr. Heck, Kevin Martin was great at getting to the line. I think it's more about how he has been trained and the style of play up to this point. That is all correctable.
My point is, those guys didn't need shake. They compensated in other ways that Lonzo Ball hasn't shown yet.
What's LeBron's FTr? 39.5% at the NBA level. That's ridiculously high.
Lonzo Ball at the NCAA level? 28.6%. He just doesn't draw FTs at a great rate.
On the flip side of things, I'd even argue that Kidd's and Stockton's lack of Iso ability/shake hindered their championship runs.
Magic, was the guy that could rely on his teammates, and ultimately, himself, if he had to, in order to get points.
Cannot say that of Kidd or Stockton, and I definitely think that lines up with Lonzo.
I always loved when we'd get down to crunch time (or "winning time" as Magic used to say), he'd become much more of a scorer, imposing his size on drives for And-1s or in the post with the baby hook.
Stockton had that in him, but was too unselfish. He was a killer shooter and was much better when he called his own number later in games. He just needed to step in more as a scorer than he wanted to. (Feel the same with CP3...when he looks to score more, he's better for his team).
I don't know where Ball will end up. I don't think he shies away from big shots and big moments. He's got a little dagger throwing in his DNA and is capable of being very dangerous (like in the last couple minutes of that Oregon comeback win...big drive for a score and a dagger three...that's how I see his potential there when the game bogs down). He won't be like an IT where you throw the ball to him possession after possession for scores, but if you need a couple of hoops whenever the game on the line? I think he's got that mentality and will be a threat.
But his physical tools is not intriguing. It's self limiting but who knows, work ethic will often surprised most even the so called experts.
We have different take on Ingram. He's not a finished product yet to me. He already has some stuffs that can make him a legit number 1 option and likes contacts to boot and he has not fully develop yet physically. His work ethic is also not in question.
I think of it this way. If they were both in the draft and a person didn't have the advantage of hindsight, they would arguably be in the same draft spot.
Tatum is by far so ahead of Ingram across the board. We talk about Ingram at point forward at his whopping 2apg for Duke, yet Tatum did the same thing and has the Iso King narrative. In terms of skills, IMHO, it's not close.
Then there's Ingram who has age and physical tools to his advantage. It just depends on what is prioritized.
But when guys like Tatum line up similarly (as said on a Vecenie podcast with Cole) to Gordon Hayward, Paul Pierce, and Joe Johnson. I flat out want THAT guy.
We shall see if Tatum skills will translate to the next level. I can tell you that he won't be the quicker or the stronger one like in college. If he has the physical tools then I can agree. I will pick Josh Jackson before him any day .
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:05 am Post subject:
Quote:
I don't know where Ball will end up. I don't think he shies away from big shots and big moments. He's got a little dagger throwing in his DNA and is capable of being very dangerous (like in the last couple minutes of that Oregon comeback win...big drive for a score and a dagger three...that's how I see his potential there when the game bogs down). He won't be like an IT where you throw the ball to him possession after possession for scores, but if you need a couple of hoops whenever the game on the line? I think he's got that mentality and will be a threat.
I definitely agree that he steps up in big moments/games. I just have a concern about that skill level translating to the NBA.
One play that sticks out was against Oregon, the 2nd time around. Ball didn't really look like himself until Aaron Holiday gave some POA support, which helped open up the court.
But when UCLA needed a bucket, he backed up for space, and did 4-5 consecutive crossovers from a standstill, to just get a half step on his defender and accelerate to the hoop.
I don't think that move flies at the NBA level. I guess a part of me is disappointed in the idea that there's no go-to-guy yet, even with the #2 pick, and I'm not banking on PG13 until he officially signs.
Wings have become more important than traditional PGs in the modern NBA, and a lot of it has to do with IMHO, that level of shot creation/attack/iso scoring much more than the playmaking. The best combination of athleticism/ball-handling/shooting lies within guys that are 6'3" to 6'9" whether it's Curry, Kyrie, Klay, Durant, LeBron, Giannis, Wall, Beal, Westbrook, etc. We're not getting that guy in Lonzo, hoping Ingram gets there or land PG13 instead.
Really, outside of Wall and LeBron, we don't see elite passing/next level court vision dominating teams. It's the scoring ability.
We have to turn Lonzo into Klay as a threat. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
I really think Lonzo's athleticism is underrated. By no means do I think he is an elite athlete, but I think he's definitely above average. I see good speed, and he definitely can get vertical when needed. He doesn't necessarily have the pop where he can get off the floor quick and be above the rim like a Westbrook/Wall etc, but he definitely has a nice foundation to build off of.
I think Lonzo's best athletic trait is speed in transition.
But don't ask about finishing with authority off the dribble or initial first step.
Fultz doesn't have a quick first step either. He just has better ball-handling and body control. I actually think they are comparable athletes. Fultz bigger hands and stronger frame at this point.
Fultz is strange in that he's a smooth athlete with power. The last guy like that was Brandon Roy. Unlike Lonzo, Fultz has a lot of upper body strength (even more so now), so he's able to bump guys on his attack drives in a way that Lonzo hasn't shown for UCLA this season. Fultz has.
But in terms of post base, body control, verticality, and even finishing at the rim in some traffic? It's easily Fultz.
For sure. If both Lonzo and Fultz are going into the same traffic, Fultz is much more likely coming through that for something strong at the rim.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:13 am Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
https://youtu.be/CFtbo2a2c5M?t=230
Plenty of shake there. He has it in him. The rest of that video shows plenty of athleticism.
That's not going to prove it to me. That's just crossover combinations and a straight line drive, like I said he already had. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 11:15 am Post subject:
DancingBarry wrote:
Eh, I'm not even sure if we land PG13 that he's that guy.
At least he's certainly more viable. Ideally, PG13 is a #2 guy. It makes you wonder who could be the #1 guy and carry the offense. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
