How many picks do the Lakers have this year? Sorry haven't keep up to date.
If they keep their top 3 pick, they'll have 3 picks in 2017.
I thought if we keep our top 3 pick our 2nd rounder goes to Orlando?
This is correct, IF we keep our Top 3 pick we lose our 2nd to Orlando which a lot of people are forgetting. That's why I think its adamant to trade Nick Young Or Calderon for a 2nd rounder in what is a very deep draft class.
I want Josh Jackson. His energy, defense and intelligence seem off the chart. His measurables in terms of length and height are elite as well. He looks like a number 1 pick.
Joined: 25 Apr 2015 Posts: 31788 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 5:55 am Post subject:
Boy was my initial posting about Josh Jackson off. I saw the electric athleticism and noted the, perhaps, questionable 3-point shooting form, but I said he might not have the same feel for the game as it relates to passing as a guy like Ingram. Damn, was I wrong.
If I liked his form better on the outside shot, I could justify taking him #1. I still think Fultz looks more polished and would still take him #1. But I think I might have to bump Jackson to the #2 spot, at least for now. I'm definitely not a fan of Lonzo's shot.
In what little I've watched of Kentucky, I've been more focused on Monk and Fox. So I haven't paid much attention to Adebayo. He certainly looks like he has an NBA-ready body already. I just glanced at his stats and despite his 6'10 260 measurements (if that's accurate), it doesn't look like he's a great shot-blocker, and I guess he's a decent rebounder. Does he have any type of offensive skills or are we just talking about a finisher/energy guy here? I mean, Thomas Robinson had an NBA-ready body too, got picked in the top 5, and didn't have much else to fall back on other than activity and energy.
In what little I've watched of Kentucky, I've been more focused on Monk and Fox. So I haven't paid much attention to Adebayo. He certainly looks like he has an NBA-ready body already. I just glanced at his stats and despite his 6'10 260 measurements (if that's accurate), it doesn't look like he's a great shot-blocker, and I guess he's a decent rebounder. Does he have any type of offensive skills or are we just talking about a finisher/energy guy here? I mean, Thomas Robinson had an NBA-ready body too, got picked in the top 5, and didn't have much else to fall back on other than activity and energy.
Not Mike, but...
Adebayo is very Tristan Thompson - has the potential to switch onto guards; tenacious offensive rebounder; mostly PnR finisher; raw low post game; not an elite rim protector with PF wingspan (~7'1") - but he's flashed a little range here and there and has a nice form at the FT line (63% FTs), so there's a chance he could become TT with a mid-range jumper. I also question his BBIQ a little bit when watching him and with his low STL% and poor A:TO ratio, but it's not glaring for a young, raw center.
I think he's a 2nd round pick in this draft (depending on who declares), tbh, but based on his pedigree, he probably ends up overdrafted in the early 20s. Maybe the Nets or Blazers?
Aside from that one drive when he made up his mind too early and drove into 3 defenders... wow.
I was already really intrigued by him before, but the more I see, the more I like.
Seems like he may have an "it" quality.
I still don't know too much about him. His biggest weakness is his shooting, right?
Josh Jackson plays like High School Julius Randle, and likely how Randle would have played had he not gone to Kentucky and Cal hit those parts of his game.
Great to watch him do it from the 3 position with an improved jumper though. Him AND Randle would be quite a tandem.
But it would also mean Ingram would have to move to the 2, unless Jackson shows he can be a 2.
I want Josh Jackson. His energy, defense and intelligence seem off the chart. His measurables in terms of length and height are elite as well. He looks like a number 1 pick.
in any other draft, he may well be. but if you spend as much time watching the other top prospects i think you'll see that he is below fultz ball (per common consensus) and tatum (imo).
Saying team wins is meaningless is so untrue. Sure, it's not the main thing you look at but when prospects are so close it's fair to use as a complimentary piece of analysis.
So what, in your mind, could Fultz do more to win games for the Huskies?
I've made it clear that idk. But there's gotta be a reason otherwise he wouldn't be 9-18 IMO. I've stated this multiple times at this point.
it boggles my mind that you admit that you don't know what more fultz could possibly do to win games, but you have unequivocally stated that washington would be better with ball and ucla would be worse with fultz. how does that even compute?
Saying team wins is meaningless is so untrue. Sure, it's not the main thing you look at but when prospects are so close it's fair to use as a complimentary piece of analysis.
So what, in your mind, could Fultz do more to win games for the Huskies?
I've made it clear that idk. But there's gotta be a reason otherwise he wouldn't be 9-18 IMO. I've stated this multiple times at this point.
it boggles my mind that you admit that you don't know what more fultz could possibly do to win games, but you have unequivocally stated that washington would be better with ball and ucla would be worse with fultz. how does that even compute?
Ball is a far better passer and has an ability to control the pace of a game much more effectively than Fultz. He would get that team easier shots than Fultz can. I'm not going to expect Fultz to be the passer Ball is, that isn't his game. I'm not going to expect him to make others better in the way Ball can, that's not his game. They are very different types of players.
I want Josh Jackson. His energy, defense and intelligence seem off the chart. His measurables in terms of length and height are elite as well. He looks like a number 1 pick.
in any other draft, he may well be. but if you spend as much time watching the other top prospects i think you'll see that he is below fultz ball (per common consensus) and tatum (imo).
I am not overly impressed with this year's top 5 projected draft picks. I don't see a Karl Anthony Townes, Ben Simmons, Anthony Davis, etc.
Lonzo's half court offense is questionable and I'm not sold on Markelle's hype (especially his leadership) on a bad team.
If the Lakers did have a choice between the two, I'd go with Lonzo (despite questions on his half court offense). His skills are more inline with the Lakers needs (slide DLO to SG with LB into his natural PG spot).
However, if I were the Lakers and Lonzo was off the board... I would trade our 1st rd pick for two 1st rd picks.
Maybe something along the lines of Orlando's 4th/20th this year, Portland's 10th/22nd picks, Chicago's 11th/17th picks, etc.
We could have three 1st rd picks in a deep draft or package pick(s) in separate deals. _________________ A three headed monster... Jeannie, Pelinka, and Ham... another terrible season.
I am not overly impressed with this year's top 5 projected draft picks. I don't see a Karl Anthony Townes, Ben Simmons, Anthony Davis, etc.
Lonzo's half court offense is questionable and I'm not sold on Markelle's hype (especially his leadership) on a bad team.
If the Lakers did have a choice between the two, I'd go with Lonzo (despite questions on his half court offense). His skills are more inline with the Lakers needs (slide DLO to SG with LB into his natural PG spot).
However, if I were the Lakers and Lonzo was off the board... I would trade our 1st rd pick for two 1st rd picks.
Maybe something along the lines of Orlando's 4th/20th this year, Portland's 10th/22nd picks, Chicago's 11th/17th picks, etc.
We could have three 1st rd picks in a deep draft or package pick(s) in separate deals.
Not sure how you can question Fultz' leadership but then have Simmons in that category you do. Same exact questions around Fultz were around Simmons--- not winning games.
I agree that Simmons is a superstar in the making, but if you don't question Simmons leadership, don't think it's fair you question Markelle.
I am not overly impressed with this year's top 5 projected draft picks. I don't see a Karl Anthony Townes, Ben Simmons, Anthony Davis, etc.
Lonzo's half court offense is questionable and I'm not sold on Markelle's hype (especially his leadership) on a bad team.
If the Lakers did have a choice between the two, I'd go with Lonzo (despite questions on his half court offense). His skills are more inline with the Lakers needs (slide DLO to SG with LB into his natural PG spot).
However, if I were the Lakers and Lonzo was off the board... I would trade our 1st rd pick for two 1st rd picks.
Maybe something along the lines of Orlando's 4th/20th this year, Portland's 10th/22nd picks, Chicago's 11th/17th picks, etc.
We could have three 1st rd picks in a deep draft or package pick(s) in separate deals.
Not sure how you can question Fultz' leadership but then have Simmons in that category you do. Same exact questions around Fultz were around Simmons--- not winning games.
I agree that Simmons is a superstar in the making, but if you don't question Simmons leadership, don't think it's fair you question Markelle.
Dlo was more impressive coming out of college then Lonzo Ball imo. Just like Dlo, Ball is going to struggle his first couple of years. He isn't going to make an instant impact. I think top to bottom, 2015 draft class > 2017 draft class. _________________ Music is my medicine
Actually rooting for the Pelicans to collapse also. More likely DMC leaves in 2018. _________________ "He's a Zen master, so he can speak to you, and he doesn't need a microphone; you can hear him in your head, 'Ron, don't shoot, don't shoot.' Whatever, pow, three. I love the Zen, though."
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