Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:08 pm Post subject:
fiendishoc wrote:
Fultz is not a short "shooting guard". He's a tall point guard who plays unselfishly and has good vision. I know everyone buying into the whole pass first vs shoot first narrative, but discussion has gotten a bit extreme here. He's not some sort of gunner.
Agreed. For someone that sought his own shot, I was surprised by his 35%+ assist percentage. His motor off ball wasn't as good as it was on ball, but I'd like to think that was due to the lack of creativity from the rest of the team and poor spacing.
Washington was shockingly predictable on offense, enough to get Romar fired. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Fultz is not a selfish player or just a scorer.
He can create for himself or for others. He is agile and has a very quick first step that allows him to attack defenses and get to the rim.
He has a good jumper, slashes well and has good court vision. No doubt about it; he is the real deal.
Isiah Thomas
Michael Jordan/Scottie Pippen
Hakeem Olajuwon
Chauncey Billups
Tim Duncan (I guess he counts?)
Tony Parker
Kobe Bryant
LeBron James
Stephen Curry
That's off the top of my head. The last "traditional high assist PG" was Rajon Rondo, and he had plenty of weapons to pass to.
So, this isn't a recent trend.
Quote:
You dont draft lonzo to be the corner stone of the franchise.
I don't understand this logic. You have a Top 3 pick. Why aren't you drafting a corner stone franchise player?
Quote:
and again. i need someone to explain to me if fultz is as good as some of you think. how is it that non of that superior skill got the huskies to .500 ball? how do you have your 4th worse season of All time with that caliber of player on the team? it's not like he played for a d-2 school playing vs d-1's. I'm not asking for a lone wolf to drag his team into the tourny. but i am saying at least we can get to .500 ball right? especially when you're a short shooting guard. i dont know if fultz is dwade with a jumpshot or Monte Ellis with a better jumper early on. he could be jamal crawford. excellent off the bench scorer. he could be the next lou williams. a great 6th man off the bench.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 7:40 pm Post subject:
^Oh, I've read it. Dean is one of the 5 to 7 guys I constantly read. But I don't agree with everything across the board with NBA writers.
If that article applies to what Lonzo Ball's scoring ability is, than Mikal Bridges should get the same, if not more attention in the lottery.
I just don't believe in his elite scoring potential. Mikal Bridges shoots with similar FG% numbers.... with more volume... but doesn't get lottery attention.
He's 70%FG, 39% 3pt, 91% 3pt, Greater than 1:1 A/TO ratio, 1.7stlpg, 0.9bpg, 30mpg, 6.5 OBPM, 6.9 DBPM, but no one calls him a genius because he can't pass like Lonzo, despite having similar efficiency as a scorer with similar usage?
40% of his shots at the rim, 80%FG at the rim, 41.3% assisted at the rim.
0% of his 2 point jumpers are assisted.
100% of his 3-point shots are assisted (shot selection), yet near similar FTr as Lonzo Ball at 24%, despite being a 3rd option on offense.
In terms of an eye-ball test, he's an off-ball player that has great shot selection, above average athleticism, a 7' wingspan. Tremendous defensive flexibility along the perimeter.
I don't think he'll make immediate NBA impact, but once he gets sorted, I think he'll be devastating. He's perfect for what GSW runs, what the Lakers want to run.
#1 Box +/- in the Big East
#10 Career Box +/- at the NCAA level.
I mean, he's an ideal 3 and D wing with hoop IQ.
Big East Co DPOY
In fact, their similar numbers in terms of shot volume, FTr, and absurdly high FG% tells me that neither guy is really a #1 or #2 scoring option, and because of how the new wave NBA is, I'd REALLY like a 3 level scoring guard that can create shots for others.
However, if you asked me, "Who is the most Kawhi-like" in this draft, it's Mikal Bridges. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:06 pm Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
Tatum has Kobe-esque offensive game.
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too.
Mike, if you were the FO and we ended up at #2, are you completely locked into Ball (presumably Fultz goes #1) or would there actually be a legit decision to make between Ball, Jackson, and Tatum?
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too.
Mike, if you were the FO and we ended up at #2, are you completely locked into Ball (presumably Fultz goes #1) or would there actually be a legit decision to make between Ball, Jackson, and Tatum?
Its between Jackson and Tatum for me. I actually lean to Tatum too.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 9:25 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
LakerLogic wrote:
Tatum has Kobe-esque offensive game.
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too.
What type of deal would you do to get the #3 or #4 pick (assuming its Tatum/Jackson)? Assuming we get the #1 or #2 pick and take a PG, keep Russell and Ingram. While we would not have the assets likely needed to trade for the #3 or #4, there are other ways to entice a team.....taking on a bad contract for one.
Just to throw out the extreme example...if the Knicks got the #3 pick, I think they would listen to a trade offer of Clarkson, Brewer and #27 for Noah and the #3. I would not do that from the Lakers side, but its just an example. Taking on Knights contract from the Suns would be another option. A young core of Fultz, DLo, Ingram and Tatum or Ball, DLo, Jackson and Ingram would have a ton of potential.
Just trying to gauge how much would you offer or take on to snag 2 top 4 picks in this draft?
Freshman dynamo CG Michael Weathers (and his less talented brother) are transferring from Miami (OH) for Big-12 pastures - KU, Mizzou, KState all under consideration. It doesn't impact this year, but watch for Michael Weathers as a 2019 draft darkhorse.
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too.
What type of deal would you do to get the #3 or #4 pick (assuming its Tatum/Jackson)? Assuming we get the #1 or #2 pick and take a PG, keep Russell and Ingram. While we would not have the assets likely needed to trade for the #3 or #4, there are other ways to entice a team.....taking on a bad contract for one.
Just to throw out the extreme example...if the Knicks got the #3 pick, I think they would listen to a trade offer of Clarkson, Brewer and #27 for Noah and the #3. I would not do that from the Lakers side, but its just an example. Taking on Knights contract from the Suns would be another option. A young core of Fultz, DLo, Ingram and Tatum or Ball, DLo, Jackson and Ingram would have a ton of potential.
Just trying to gauge how much would you offer or take on to snag 2 top 4 picks in this draft?
#3/noah for clarkson, brewer, #27 is as 1 sided traded i have ever seen.
Yep. I don't think much of him defensively; more along the lines of fine team defender than legit man-defender.
I don't even care he's slightly undersized at 4 and lacks the strength and motor to compensate. He's a mismatch nightmare offensively. Completely forgot about his intangibles with Team USA and work ethic too.
What type of deal would you do to get the #3 or #4 pick (assuming its Tatum/Jackson)? Assuming we get the #1 or #2 pick and take a PG, keep Russell and Ingram. While we would not have the assets likely needed to trade for the #3 or #4, there are other ways to entice a team.....taking on a bad contract for one.
Just to throw out the extreme example...if the Knicks got the #3 pick, I think they would listen to a trade offer of Clarkson, Brewer and #27 for Noah and the #3. I would not do that from the Lakers side, but its just an example. Taking on Knights contract from the Suns would be another option. A young core of Fultz, DLo, Ingram and Tatum or Ball, DLo, Jackson and Ingram would have a ton of potential.
Just trying to gauge how much would you offer or take on to snag 2 top 4 picks in this draft?
I would think there would be several teams ready to give a much better offer for Noah + top 4 pick than your Clarkson + Brewer + #27/#28 proposal.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 10:47 pm Post subject:
LakerLogic wrote:
If it's down to Jackson vs Tatum, just have them play 1 on 1 and be done with it.
Tatum isolated a bunch of times on Jackson in the McDonalds game. From memory, Jackson blocked him once, stripped him twice, and forced him into 1-2 tough fadeaway that bricked. Tatum scored on him on a post up and drew free throws on a drive.
Fultz is not a short "shooting guard". He's a tall point guard who plays unselfishly and has good vision. I know everyone buying into the whole pass first vs shoot first narrative, but discussion has gotten a bit extreme here. He's not some sort of gunner.
And ball is not some sort of ugly shot goof who is only good at passing but that narrative is the majority opinion round here and is also extreme,,, _________________ Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Fultz is not a short "shooting guard". He's a tall point guard who plays unselfishly and has good vision. I know everyone buying into the whole pass first vs shoot first narrative, but discussion has gotten a bit extreme here. He's not some sort of gunner.
And ball is not some sort of ugly shot goof who is only good at passing but that narrative is the majority opinion round here and is also extreme,,,
All I know is whatever team that passes on Ball is going to regret it for many years to come. _________________ My Dream Starting 5 next Season
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:15 pm Post subject:
You watch Josh Jackson and you feel like you've seen this player before. He reminds me of a guy in the Justice Winslow, Shabbaz Muhammed, Stanley Johnson and Aaron Gordon group. That tweener small forward who, at the college level, has a combination of activity level, elite athleticism and size that dominates... but, once they get to the NBA, it becomes apparent that they relied so much on their physical abilities that their skill levels were deficient and needed to catch up.
Josh Jackson reminds me of Andrew Wiggins without the skill level or shooting ability, which basically make him a taller Stanley Johnson or an Andre Igoudala. IMO, he just doesn't leap out at you as someone who has that special size or athleticism or skill or BBIQ that makes you believe he could be a superstar or consistent all-star. If you have a top 3 pick, you don't go for a guy who may be "solid," you pick a guy who has a chance of becoming a super star or perennial all-star.
Tatum has definitely jumped Jackson as that kind of prospect in my mind. Jackson's activity level kills Tatum, and I think Jackson is a less selfish player. However, Tatum has a combination of elite size/length plus skill level that I don't think Jackson can compete with.
Too bad De'Aaron Fox isn't a great shooter. If he had a consistent 3pt shot, he'd be right there in the top 3 for me. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
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
