Does anyone else think it's crazy Dennis Smith Jr. was arguably the most athletic player in college one year removed from ACL surgery? He might reach Westbrook/Wall levels of athleticism once he fully recovers.
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2017 11:48 pm Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
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.
I don't agree with a lot of this. He is a lot more skilled than the guys in the "activity" group. His functional handles and feel for the game are superior to Wiggins coming out of school. He also has good vision and touch on his passes. His role restricted the amount of things he could try from the perimeter, but he is capable of more at the next level. Like I mentioned before, when they played Kentucky, he crossed over Fox twice in isolation and dished inside for the score. I can't imagine most of those guys mentioned above doing that.
I think there's a pretty noticeable difference between this:
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,,,
New
The Ball obsession is really interesting to see. Emphasis on traits that are less relevant today than they were decades ago. And Ball's advanced numbers are going to be inflated on a stacked team/offense which flourished until it faced legit competition.
I do think he could do incredibly well in the right offense (he's be good here I think), but I also think he's not guaranteed stardom like I think Fultz is. He could certainly struggle on a bad team that asks him to create off the dribble regularly AND handle primary scorer responsibilities.
now here's the thing, interviews and stuff like this can kind of give you perspective, the kind of sides to Lavar that they don't paint in the narrative.
Now of course he turns on the showman and promoter aspect when asked about Michael Jordan. But you listen to what he says about his son, and their mother, and then you get the down on why he got into it with Chino Hills coach, it goes deeper than what the media tried to portray it, also how he has no intention on interfering with any NBA coaches, and never did with Steve Alford, because the Chino Hills situation was an isolated incident because it was something personal, for reasons he got into in the interview.
So it really does give you a bit of perspective on this guy, he's not some loose cannon that people make him out to be, what he is, is a father with unshakable faith in his kids, and has a solid promoters mind and has an eye for business.
If a lot of these High School #1 recruits and stuff's parents had made them a brand that they could make money from that the NCAA will never touch WHILE they were in college and before they even got to the pro's a lot of those kids would find themselves in better situations from the get go, especially the ones that don't go on to pan out in the NBA. So that may wind up starting something.
Because the NCAA can't stop kids from making money off their own memorabilia if they are their own brand before the college even gets them. What LaVar has done here is open the floodgates for these top 100 college recruits to have their own brand/business before they even get to the NCAA and that could wind up being a big X-Factor in both the short and long run. _________________ How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:31 am Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
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.
I think Jackson is a far more complete basketball player than Justice Winslow, Shabbaz Muhammed, Stanley Johnson and Aaron Gordon, nor do I feel he is a tweener. He is a SF most likely in the NBA, but he arrived @ Kansas as a guard....but their scheme was 1 big and 4 guards all year. I know there is a divide on this thought, but I think Jackson is much more likely to move up a position in the NBA to SG than move down to the PF in the NBA.
In regards to the length, in the most recent measurements, Jackson has a 1" smaller wingspan than Tatum, but how accurate are those numbers? If you tell me they are very accurate, then I have to know how Jackson was 1" longer in wingspan in 2014 USA Basketball compared to 2015 USA Basketball. I like both Jackson and Tatum, but I think Jacksons motor and defense gives him a higher floor in the NBA.
Some people may it see as a positive and others a negative, but Jackson performed as the 2b option on Kansas (behind Mason and behind or equal to Graham), while Tatum (Kennard) and Ball (Leaf) were 1b options on their teams. The biggest praise for Jackson from Mason, Graham and Self was the total respect he showed towards the veterans in sacrificing elements of his game out of respect for their roles on the team, and Self even said in many ways he became the most important player in the lineup from the 3rd option role.....and near the end of the season through the suspension and foul trouble, this was very obvious. I think Jackson's game is much more than what he was able to display @ Kansas...and what he displayed was very special.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:46 am Post subject:
not that it really means anything, but I noticed on all of the All American team announcements including Wooden, Sporting News, USA Today and the National Association of Basketball Coaches......Jackson made the team listed as a Guard.
For the people who say Ball is a better fit. Why do you think we need another player with very little athleticism? The
only one with some decent potential is Ingram. Randle and Clarkson are what they are imo.
For the people who say Ball is a better fit. Why do you think we need another player with very little athleticism? The
only one with some decent potential is Ingram. Randle and Clarkson are what they are imo.
I don't see Ingram having elite athleticism. JC has it. Randle, not sure, comes in spurts. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:35 am Post subject:
yinoma2001 wrote:
So Harry Giles. Worth the risk with Houston's pick?
I think so....but I assume if the team Doctors give a positive conclusion, he will not slip to us....and if they do not, then I guess he would not be an optimal option....but as of now, I am one of the few still on Giles
So Harry Giles. Worth the risk with Houston's pick?
I think so....but I assume if the team Doctors give a positive conclusion, he will not slip to us....and if they do not, then I guess he would not be an optimal option....but as of now, I am one of the few still on Giles
I guess if he "passes" medical tests, he wouldn't drop to us that far out. IF he's available at #27-28, that means his medicals must be bad and we just roll the dice if we select him. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 5:46 am Post subject:
fiendishoc wrote:
I don't agree with a lot of this. He is a lot more skilled than the guys in the "activity" group. His functional handles and feel for the game are superior to Wiggins coming out of school. He also has good vision and touch on his passes. His role restricted the amount of things he could try from the perimeter, but he is capable of more at the next level. Like I mentioned before, when they played Kentucky, he crossed over Fox twice in isolation and dished inside for the score. I can't imagine most of those guys mentioned above doing that.
I think there's a pretty noticeable difference between this:
and this:
Where I agree with you is that, out the "activity group", he is the most skilled and versatile. Of that group, he is the most skilled prospect coming out of college. But... I 100% disagree with you in your assessment that he is more skilled than Wiggins coming out of college. I don't even think its close. Wiggins' problem wasn't his skill level, it was his aggression and focus. If you gave Wiggins at Kansas Jackson's activity level, you would be talking about one of the best college players ever.
I think Andre Igoudala, and his career, are a very good comp for Jackson. He may make some all-star games, and could be a No. 3 or No. 4 option on a championship team. I just want more than that, or at least the likely potential for more than that, out of a top 3 pick. Tatum is the only guy in my mind (outside of Ball and Fultz) who offers that. I think he has a decent chance to be a No. 2 guy, and maybe even a No. 1 if he surprises. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
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,,,
New
The Ball obsession is really interesting to see. Emphasis on traits that are less relevant today than they were decades ago. And Ball's advanced numbers are going to be inflated on a stacked team/offense which flourished until it faced legit competition.
I do think he could do incredibly well in the right offense (he's be good here I think), but I also think he's not guaranteed stardom like I think Fultz is. He could certainly struggle on a bad team that asks him to create off the dribble regularly AND handle primary scorer responsibilities.
1) UCLA had some fine offensive talents, but outside of upgrading from Jonah Bolden to TJ Leaf, Ball took over the exact same team that went 15-17 with the #51 offense in the country in 2015-16 and helped produce the #2 offense in the country on a 31-5 squad that beat every team it played including "legit competition" like UK in Rupp (97 points!), Arizona in Tuscon, and Final (bleep) Four Oregon. That #2 AdjO, btw, would have led the nation in offense in every previous year since 2002 (h/t KenPom) except for 2015 when it would've come in 2nd to Wisconsin's 2015 efficiency monster.
The exact same team - AdjO #51 (15-17)---> AdjO #2 (31-5). Simple enough?
2) Don't ask your pass first PG to be your primary scorer. Simple enough.
For the people who say Ball is a better fit. Why do you think we need another player with very little athleticism? The
only one with some decent potential is Ingram. Randle and Clarkson are what they are imo.
So Harry Giles. Worth the risk with Houston's pick?
I think so....but I assume if the team Doctors give a positive conclusion, he will not slip to us....and if they do not, then I guess he would not be an optimal option....but as of now, I am one of the few still on Giles
I guess if he "passes" medical tests, he wouldn't drop to us that far out. IF he's available at #27-28, that means his medicals must be bad and we just roll the dice if we select him.
He could fall given how far behind his injuries set his skill development and court awareness as he missed two years of HS and a third of his college freshman year. Giles is a raw dude whose game is dependent on athleticism who's had three significant knee injuries in 3.5 years - caveat emptor even with a clean bill of health.
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:18 am Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
I don't agree with a lot of this. He is a lot more skilled than the guys in the "activity" group. His functional handles and feel for the game are superior to Wiggins coming out of school. He also has good vision and touch on his passes. His role restricted the amount of things he could try from the perimeter, but he is capable of more at the next level. Like I mentioned before, when they played Kentucky, he crossed over Fox twice in isolation and dished inside for the score. I can't imagine most of those guys mentioned above doing that.
I think there's a pretty noticeable difference between this:
and this:
Where I agree with you is that, out the "activity group", he is the most skilled and versatile. Of that group, he is the most skilled prospect coming out of college. But... I 100% disagree with you in your assessment that he is more skilled than Wiggins coming out of college. I don't even think its close. Wiggins' problem wasn't his skill level, it was his aggression and focus. If you gave Wiggins at Kansas Jackson's activity level, you would be talking about one of the best college players ever.
I think Andre Igoudala, and his career, are a very good comp for Jackson. He may make some all-star games, and could be a No. 3 or No. 4 option on a championship team. I just want more than that, or at least the likely potential for more than that, out of a top 3 pick. Tatum is the only guy in my mind (outside of Ball and Fultz) who offers that. I think he has a decent chance to be a No. 2 guy, and maybe even a No. 1 if he surprises.
I do not see why you fit him into something call the "activity group"? or why you consider Ball a #1 or #2 option. As a scorer, I do not consider him either a #1 or #2 on a good team. In my opinion, Jackson is much more likely to be a #1 or #2 option as a scorer in the NBA than Ball will be who is not even a big time scorer in college.
Ball makes great passes as a PG, Jackson makes great passes as a SF, they are both very smart on the court, and they both have questions about their shots translating at the next level, and they are both very good rebounders for their positions....everything else, I would give Jackson the edge.
Funny how this passionate battle of the "who is best" argument rages on.
First off the Lakers do not even have the pick yet. Secondly I would speculate there is a really good chance it gets traded.
If the Lakers do decide to use it is there really a "bad "choice?
Different players with different skillsets. Each brings something a little different to the roster. My preference is Ball because of his playmaking abilities. But I will be just as enthusiastic of any of them making the roster better.
Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 33474 Location: Long Beach, California
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:28 am Post subject:
^I see Ball's talents translating better to the NBA than I do Jackson's. Jackson could very well end up the better player. Both players have risks, but Ball's ceiling, because of the position he plays, his skill level and his size for that position, is higher.
Jackson, size wise and athletically, is a dime a dozen in the NBA. So, for Jackson to separate himself in the NBA, he will have to be that much more skilled than his competition. I think he is skilled, more so than most in the "energy group," but once he loses his athleticism advantage, at his size/height, I think he comes down to earth a bit. Andre Igoudala has a very, very good career, so not like I'm dissing on him hard. I just don't see him being one of the top 2 players on a championship team. Fultz, Ball and Tatum all have the potential to be, IMO. _________________ LakersGround's Terms of Service
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:39 am Post subject:
LakerSanity wrote:
^I see Ball's talents translating better to the NBA than I do Jackson's. Jackson could very well end up the better player. Both players have risks, but Ball's ceiling, because of the position he plays, his skill level and his size for that position, is higher.
Jackson, size wise and athletically, is a dime a dozen in the NBA. So, for Jackson to separate himself in the NBA, he will have to be that much more skilled than his competition. I think he is skilled, more so than most in the "energy group," but once he loses his athleticism advantage, at his size/height, I think he comes down to earth a bit. Andre Igoudala has a very, very good career, so not like I'm dissing on him hard. I just don't see him being one of the top 2 players on a championship team. Fultz, Ball and Tatum all have the potential to be, IMO.
I agree on Balls size as more of an advantage...I actually love long PG's more than the average fan. A dime a dozen? Athletic 2 Way wings are the most valuable and rare specimen in the NBA. In a generic sense, PG have become one of the more over populated positions in the league.
I respect your thoughts....and recognize many hold them...maybe even the majority, but we will probably just disagree on the topic. I have admitted before that I have become a little contrarian on Ball, and I am not even 100% sure why, but recognizing that, it may prevent me from seeing him from the optimal perspective.
^I see Ball's talents translating better to the NBA than I do Jackson's. Jackson could very well end up the better player. Both players have risks, but Ball's ceiling, because of the position he plays, his skill level and his size for that position, is higher.
Jackson, size wise and athletically, is a dime a dozen in the NBA. So, for Jackson to separate himself in the NBA, he will have to be that much more skilled than his competition. I think he is skilled, more so than most in the "energy group," but once he loses his athleticism advantage, at his size/height, I think he comes down to earth a bit. Andre Igoudala has a very, very good career, so not like I'm dissing on him hard. I just don't see him being one of the top 2 players on a championship team. Fultz, Ball and Tatum all have the potential to be, IMO.
I agree on Balls size as more of an advantage...I actually love long PG's more than the average fan. A dime a dozen? Athletic 2 Way wings are the most valuable and rare specimen in the NBA. In a generic sense, PG have become one of the more over populated positions in the league.
I respect your thoughts....and recognize many hold them...maybe even the majority, but we will probably just disagree on the topic. I have admitted before that I have become a little contrarian on Ball, and I am not even 100% sure why, but recognizing that, it may prevent me from seeing him from the optimal perspective.
Lol on the 1st sentence.
Same, his dad don't help his cause either. I just don't see "it." _________________ Music is my medicine
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 6:48 am Post subject:
Four Decade Bandwagon wrote:
Funny how this passionate battle of the "who is best" argument rages on.
First off the Lakers do not even have the pick yet. Secondly I would speculate there is a really good chance it gets traded.
If the Lakers do decide to use it is there really a "bad "choice?
Different players with different skillsets. Each brings something a little different to the roster. My preference is Ball because of his playmaking abilities. But I will be just as enthusiastic of any of them making the roster better.
I mean its like 1 of 3 or 4 subjects available to discuss at this point....and if we all agreed, there would be no point in LG. It would just be threads with titles. I do think we can make a bad pick, and still get a good player. For example, if Tatum is truly the future superstar of this draft, and we take Fultz with the #1 pick, then we likely got a good player but made a poor selection.
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
