|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Iandrewd
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 383
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, but like any PF or C that's not a primary ball handler he relies on other people to get him the ball. That becomes difficult when the offense doesn't feature any actions to counter defenses doubling him, especially when the defense doesn't mind leaving poor shooters open.
The biggest flaw with AD is that he thinks he's a good jump shooter and he's really not. His issues with posting up are primarily due to the structure of the offense around him and what it allows the defense to do.
"Big" guys that dominate in the NBA right now either handle the ball extensively (Giannis), are excellent passers (Jokic), or have offenses that spread the floor out more and allow the big guy to go one-on-one in the post. AD is an elite defender and roll man which would certainly be foundational if the Lakers had a point guard that was even an average shooting threat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
danzag
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 Apr 2013
Posts: 22313
Location: Brazil
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Iandrewd wrote: | Yes, but like any PF or C that's not a primary ball handler he relies on other people to get him the ball. That becomes difficult when the offense doesn't feature any actions to counter defenses doubling him, especially when the defense doesn't mind leaving poor shooters open.
The biggest flaw with AD is that he thinks he's a good jump shooter and he's really not. His issues with posting up are primarily due to the structure of the offense around him and what it allows the defense to do.
"Big" guys that dominate in the NBA right now either handle the ball extensively (Giannis), are excellent passers (Jokic), or have offenses that spread the floor out more and allow the big guy to go one-on-one in the post. AD is an elite defender and roll man which would certainly be foundational if the Lakers had a point guard that was even an average shooting threat. |
Correct. Imagine AD playing with Chris Paul every damn night, as opposed to Dennis Schroeder or Westbrook |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Snipes wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | AD is a DPOY level player who can basically give you 25/10 a night.
But he’s not a 1A alpha player. He’s an amazing 1B who will always need a creator/strong alpha as the main guy. |
That’s your opinion. He won a ring as the 1A in Orlando. I mean 1A for sure right unless we are ignoring defensive impact?
This whole thread is hilarious. AD is literally surrounded by the most awfully constructed team I have seen since that implosion Kerr had in the front office where he dealt for Shaq.
If you really think AD is the problem you must be ignoring every other player on the team.
2 things I have no issue with: Vogel’s coaching and AD. The rest of the team + Pelinka? Throw them to the Wolves. |
You're not understanding me here. I love having AD on the team. But, I'm also cognizant that he's not a shot creating big man like Giannis or LBJ. He needs someone to do that for him. No knock in that sense.
People underestimate how valuable a DPOY level player plus a 25/10 guy is. It's just that people want a Giannis who creates for himself and others, which AD is not as much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Runway8 wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Runway8 wrote: | | AD will be 29 by the time playoff rolls around. Here's a simple answer to your question. At 29 years old, did we ever have questions about players such as... Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq, Ewing, Jordan, Kobe, LeBron, David Robinson, etc.? |
I'd take Ewing off that list. When he was 29, most of his Knicks teams were sub .500 and had never made it past the second round. His record to that point wasn't much better than AD at age 29 (though AD started his career years earlier.)
The rest of the guys you name are on the GOAT short list, or just outside it. If that's your standard, pretty much everyone is going to fail it. |
But Ewing's status was cemented. He was there cornerstone, and eventually did do what they expected. Just too bad he lived in MJ's era. There was no questioning Ewing's heart either.
I thought it was pretty clear, that we all thought AD was the next big thing. My expectation was him taking Duncan's mantle. And I'm just making the point why these threads keep popping up. It's because of our high expectations. The reality is AD ain't that guy. AD will be more Pau Gasol, James Worthy, etc. in Lakers lore when it's all said and done... not Magic, Kobe, Shaq or Bron. |
It's debatable to me if Ewing was any better than AD. I do think the era Ewing played in was better for his skillset than today's time is for AD.
And, of course, you can spin this a lot of ways. You excuse the Knicks for not getting by the Bulls "because he lived in MJ's era," but you don't excuse the Pelicans not getting by the Warriors because, say, "he lived in Curry's era."
And, by being disappointed AD isn't Duncan, you're disappointed he's not a GOAT-level player.
I think if Ewing was around today with the exact same skills and performance, you'd be saying "He ain't that guy."
Last edited by activeverb on Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Speaking of outliers. I was wondering if the outlier for the Bron/AD era is that both can stay healthy/peak at the same time for a significant amount of time. It seems since the NBA Finals when AD first got injured, we have not had a significant period (say 2-3 months) where both Bron and AD are close to 100%. It seems one of the two are having to deal with someting.
Curious to see if they still have "it". I never viewed AD as Giannis on offense. I viewed AD as more of modern day big guy. And a swiss army knife. Can do a bit of everything. So for an offense to run well around him, he needs the guards he plays with to be doing very well. When Jrue and Rondo played well in NOR, that's when AD thrived as well. I think it's been the same in LA. When Bron/Rondo play well, AD does even better. Westbrook was suppoed to be that guy, and while has increased AD's paint touches/paint scores, I don't think he has shown he can manage games at the appropriate level.
I don't think big guys tend to be able to create and run an offense through them, unless they are the Joker. He's the sort of the only big guy you could argue would be that player an offense can be completely built around. But then, on the other side, he's no where near AD level on D. You can't have it all, you know. Then factor the defensive rules. Like the Bulls. They had two players on AD before the ball could even get into the paint. You couldn't do that before the zone era began. It's much more difficult for big guys to dominate inside now vs 20 years ago. As soon as a big guy has a mismatch like AD had, teams begin to zone. Miami did the exact same thing to us in the NBA Finals. Only we had Lebron, and Rondo. Most of this season, we've had an elite attacking SG, who thinks he is a point guard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8450
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Iandrewd wrote: | Yes, but like any PF or C that's not a primary ball handler he relies on other people to get him the ball. That becomes difficult when the offense doesn't feature any actions to counter defenses doubling him, especially when the defense doesn't mind leaving poor shooters open.
The biggest flaw with AD is that he thinks he's a good jump shooter and he's really not. His issues with posting up are primarily due to the structure of the offense around him and what it allows the defense to do.
"Big" guys that dominate in the NBA right now either handle the ball extensively (Giannis), are excellent passers (Jokic), or have offenses that spread the floor out more and allow the big guy to go one-on-one in the post. AD is an elite defender and roll man which would certainly be foundational if the Lakers had a point guard that was even an average shooting threat. |
So AD can't create without the ball? When we look at Shaq for example (not comparing the 2, just focusing on an aspect as an example) the offense has his position in it, but the offense doesn't necessarily need to be predicated around him for him to be effective. We need to get him the ball within the offense, but he gets into position where he is most effective and dominates. Same with other elite bigs. AD has the most unusual, elite combination of features. He has a combination of great length, size, quickness, and agility. I agree a guard has to get him the ball, but that has nothing to do with him not getting into position where he is the most effective. Especially when he is longer, bigger, quicker than most bigs. He should be dominating mostly every big; and a battle with Joel and Jokic.
As we seen vs the Spurs, he has the ability to do it and we will feed him it where he needs, but he shies away from it and floats around the perimeter, way outside the key, doing fade aways. He likes to pick and pop, but he's better picking and rolling. Another thing about getting into position where is most effective at; under the rim, he is in position to get more rebounds. That is why the spurs game was so dominant because he was utilizing his positional effectiveness on the court, and also was in position to get the rebound. Incorporate that with his elite defense.
A guard getting him the ball also has nothing to do with him being pushed around by 6'6 wings and smaller players.
Last edited by Outspoken on Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:21 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iandrewd
Starting Rotation
Joined: 26 Mar 2011
Posts: 383
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: |
I don't think big guys tend to be able to create and run an offense through them, unless they are the Joker. He's the sort of the only big guy you could argue would be that player an offense can be completely built around. But then, on the other side, he's no where near AD level on D. You can't have it all, you know. Then factor the defensive rules. Like the Bulls. They had two players on AD before the ball could even get into the paint. You couldn't do that before the zone era began. It's much more difficult for big guys to dominate inside now vs 20 years ago. As soon as a big guy has a mismatch like AD had, teams begin to zone. Miami did the exact same thing to us in the NBA Finals. Only we had Lebron, and Rondo. Most of this season, we've had an elite attacking SG, who thinks he is a point guard. |
I would argue that part of the problem is that Vogel isn't super creative on offense and doesn't do much to help AD out when he's being trapped hard (see the Bulls game for a great example of this). The Bulls have been trapping in the post all season but the Lakers looked completely unprepared for it when they played them. Vogel is an absolutely amazing defensive coach but he really needs to find some assistants/video personnel to help devise some play adjustments to help this offense. Attacking a strong-side by having a player cut to the strong side is NOT a helpful way to free up AD; especially when, for whatever reason, one of the bad shooters on the team is the weakside guy. There were numerous times that AD found an open shooter against the Bulls' double teams but the open shooter was, surprise, Westbrook or THT because the guys cutting to get open are poor shooters; now that could be by design (which if it is, then ugh) or it's because the defense is perfectly happy to leave Westbrook, THT, or Bradley open while 3 guys are playing AD.
Please don't read what I'm not saying, I think Vogel is a good coach, there aren't many coaches that are excellent at offense AND defense. Vogel is one of the best defensive coaches in the NBA (probably top-5) but he's slow to implement counters on offense and lacks creativity at times. Lebron would obviously help with a lot of this but his days of playing 65+ games are over and the team needs some new ideas to help out an offense that's limited by personnel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfpaclaker
Retired Number
Joined: 29 May 2002
Posts: 58336
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree. The offense has not come along the way one would like. I saw similar issues 2 years ago, only Lebron's elite playmaking (and sometimes Rondo) masked it. We were struggling to score, built up leads, and then just couldn't score and ran shot clocks out with Bron pounding the ball offense. This was about 30% of the RS 2 years ago. But the D was elite, so good, that it just kept us in.
Now Vogel's lost that ability and weapon to be an elite D team. He has to figure out how to be an effective coach without his biggest weapon. It's tough for him, but that's why he is paid the big bucks. About Vogel, we will find out this year if he's a really good coach, or not. Once you took away his biggest weapon (His D) you're now asking him to coach outside his comfort zones.
Even all the lineups. Sometimes AD at the 5. DAJ at the 5, AD at the 4. Baze starting. Bradley starting. He's not even ironed out what position AD should start, and 2 other starters (not Bron, because he's been injured) next to WB. So AD, WB + 2 other starters + await Bron. I'm not sure he has even gotten to that point. This is just like one giant preseason for Vogel. Been tough to watch, but I will remain patient. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144461
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: |
It's debatable to me if Ewing was any better than AD. I do think the era Ewing played in was better for his skillset than today's time is for AD.
And, of course, you can spin this a lot of ways. You excuse the Knicks for not getting by the Bulls "because he lived in MJ's era," but you don't excuse the Pelicans not getting by the Warriors because, say, "he lived in Curry's era."
And, by being disappointed AD isn't Duncan, you're disappointed he's not a GOAT-level player.
I think if Ewing was around today with the exact same skills and performance, you'd be saying "He ain't that guy." |
Embiid reminds me of Ewing. They aren’t identical, of course, because they are products of different eras. If Ewing had been born in the current generation, I think he would be almost identical to Embiid. So do we think that Embiid is “that guy”? Most of us would say No.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krisobe
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 3309
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
This. He will never be a true #1 alpha like CURRY / KD / GIANNIS / DONCIC / BRON / etc.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8450
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halflife
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 16704
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Outspoken wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
All of those guys other than Harden and maybe KD pre-quit have had superior teammates than AD pre bron. replace AD on all of those teams then compare. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8450
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Halflife wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
All of those guys other than Harden and maybe KD pre-quit have had superior teammates than AD pre bron. replace AD on all of those teams then compare. |
They all were #1 options. AD right now, no Bron, is the #1 option and most the time AD makes the playoffs, he is not the #1 option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Halflife
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Aug 2015
Posts: 16704
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Outspoken wrote: | | Halflife wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
All of those guys other than Harden and maybe KD pre-quit have had superior teammates than AD pre bron. replace AD on all of those teams then compare. |
They all were #1 options. AD right now, no Bron, is the #1 option and most the time AD makes the playoffs, he is not the #1 option. |
I get it. Give AD klay, Give AD embiids teammates, give him Kawhis. Youre comparisons arent great. These guys have had superior talent than AD did as a #1 IMHO. Look at Jokis squad and he hasn't done anything with it. Obviously, I am not going to put him in Brons league. No one IMHO could have done more with less historically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
I wouldn't call him a 2nd fiddle. In the 2020 Finals run, he averaged 28/10/3.5. He was more of a 1B rather than a 2nd option. LBJ is certainly the conductor of the orchestra, and everything flows better with him. But it's not like AD is a 5th row violinist either. He was a featured top soloist and instrumental to winning that championship. He went on a rampage in the playoffs and we don't win without him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hype
Star Player
Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 4373
Location: Lake Nacimiento
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
I wouldn't call him a 2nd fiddle. In the 2020 Finals run, he averaged 28/10/3.5. He was more of a 1B rather than a 2nd option. LBJ is certainly the conductor of the orchestra, and everything flows better with him. But it's not like AD is a 5th row violinist either. He was a featured top soloist and instrumental to winning that championship. He went on a rampage in the playoffs and we don't win without him. |
Not only the numbers but the percentages as well were absolutely insane, that 2020 run was one of the better ones for any big imo when you look at his 2 way impact on top of it all.
He was also shaping up into a pretty beastly #1 option in NO that last Playoff run he had with them where they were the underdogs going into Portland and swept them with ease (without Cousins as well who he had great chemistry with) then they had to face one of the greatest assembled teams of all time in the Warriors with Durant who they lost too but he still played well just was monumentally overmatched.
I agree that he lacks fire it seems at times but with Bron out his Robin has been Russ who is playing god awful thus far and is wildly inconsistent at pretty much every aspect of basketball. I have faith he'll improve at least a little bit to not be brutally awful but you can't just throw it all on AD because Russ and a bunch of brand new offense first minimum contract guys can't win....
He is like nearly every single big in history though where he needs shooters to give him some spacing where he can operate best and most importantly a perimeter guy that can help get him good looks. So i'd say he's more a 1b. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
I wouldn't call him a 2nd fiddle. In the 2020 Finals run, he averaged 28/10/3.5. He was more of a 1B rather than a 2nd option. LBJ is certainly the conductor of the orchestra, and everything flows better with him. But it's not like AD is a 5th row violinist either. He was a featured top soloist and instrumental to winning that championship. He went on a rampage in the playoffs and we don't win without him. |
When you call someone a 1B, you're essentially saying that they are a really high quality second fiddle. I think that is an accurate description of Davis in the 2020 playoffs. I'm less sure about now.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scout_0
Star Player
Joined: 22 Oct 2020
Posts: 1810
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Nearly impossible for a big to dominate the game the way the NBA is being played. But it's also nearly impossible to win without a big that does the things Davis does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8450
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Halflife wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: | | Halflife wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | wolfpaclaker wrote: | He won a title averaging 28-10-2 and playing elite D. Shot the 3 well, and shot the ball well effectively (50 percent). He defended Jimmy Butler, Jokic, Etc helped anchor the D on Lillard/Westbrook/Harden.
I don’t know what world some live in, but the whole point of being good is to win a title and AD did this. What he does after remains to be seen, but his resume will go down as one of the best at his position. |
He did as a second fiddle to Lebron. Can he do it as the first option? That is the point of this thread and something that AD has never shown he can do. |
Other than Lebron, Curry, Kawhi, Giannis, and arguably Durant, no one in the NBA today has.
It's funny, once you get past the GOAT short list, the number of players who have "proven" they could be the first option on a title team is really small. It might be as few as half a dozen, depending on who you decide was a "first option."
I start thinking of everyone who falls into this category of guys who never proved they could be the first option on a title team: Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, John Stockton, Allen Iverson, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash, Bob McAdoo, Chris Paul, Gary Payton, Scottie Pippen, Nikola Jokic and arguably Dr. J, Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, Kevin Durant, Bob Cousy, John Havlicek, Wes Unseld, David Robinson, and Dwyane Wade.
It's probably, what? -- 80-90% of the players in the Hall of Fame? 13 or so MVPs? Most of the guys on the all-time top 50 and 75 lists.
My point is I don't think people quite grasp the rarefied standard they are setting here.
(And FYI: I'm not interested in getting into a debate about whether guys like Jerry West, Kevin Garnett, and Kevin Durant were the first or second option on their ring teams.) |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
All of those guys other than Harden and maybe KD pre-quit have had superior teammates than AD pre bron. replace AD on all of those teams then compare. |
They all were #1 options. AD right now, no Bron, is the #1 option and most the time AD makes the playoffs, he is not the #1 option. |
I get it. Give AD klay, Give AD embiids teammates, give him Kawhis. Youre comparisons arent great. These guys have had superior talent than AD did as a #1 IMHO. Look at Jokis squad and he hasn't done anything with it. Obviously, I am not going to put him in Brons league. No one IMHO could have done more with less historically. |
I'm just talking about leading a team to the playoffs as the #1.
Steph is carrying his team without Klay. Westbrook carried his team to the playoffs without KD. Nuggets is 2nd in their division without Murray. Lillard and Harden carried their team to the playoffs with less talent. Clippers almost went to the finals with PG as the #1, without Kawhi and are doing well to start this season. What teammates on the Sixers do you wanna give him, that AD would excel with, with him as the #1 option? Seth? Drummond? Tobias? when Embiid was healthy, as the #1, sixers were 8-2. they are on a losing streak now that he is out.
AD as the #1 on the Lakers, without Bron, Lakers are a lottery team. It's been like that Most his career. He is #1, the team is lottery. He has not consistently shown that he could impact his team enough to push them to the playoffs. Based on his career, it is a rare occasion he #1, the team makes it to the playoffs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2019
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Dec 2014
Posts: 10804
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He's a Robin with Batman's talent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Outspoken wrote: |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
The problem with this argument is that you attribute the team's success entirely to the #1 guy -- so having Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green as teammates is exactly the same as having Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, and Greivis Vásquez as teammates.
I mean are guys like Embiid and Lillard really more "foundational players" than AD. I'm not sure you can make a strong case for that without defining "foundational player" in such a way that they automatically win.
Beyond that, when people talk about "foundational players" they aren't asking if a player is capable of leading a team that goes 0-4 in the first round of the playoffs.
They are asking if you can reasonable assemble a team around that player that has a chance of being a genuine contender. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Outspoken
Star Player
Joined: 11 Feb 2015
Posts: 8450
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
The problem with this argument is that you attribute the team's success entirely to the #1 guy -- so having Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green as teammates is exactly the same as having Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, and Greivis Vásquez as teammates.
I mean are guys like Embiid and Lillard really more "foundational players" than AD. I'm not sure you can make a strong case for that without defining "foundational player" in such a way that they automatically win.
Beyond that, when people talk about "foundational players" they aren't asking if a player is capable of leading a team that goes 0-4 in the first round of the playoffs.
They are asking if you can reasonable assemble a team around that player that has a chance of being a genuine contender. |
I'm talking about a star impacting a team enough to make it to the playoffs, as the #1 option. Steph doesn't have Klay or Durant and the team is being successful with Steph as the #1 option. Embiid was 8-2 as #1 option this season, without Ben Simmons and sixers are on a 5 game losing streak with him being out. A foundational player can get a team to the playoffs as the #1 option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Outspoken wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Outspoken wrote: |
Players have shown they can impact a team to win and carry their team to the playoffs. AD has not consistently shown he can. He hasn't even consistently shown he could win games without Lebron on the Lakers. AD as a #1 on a team, are lottery teams, when he is the main guy. Can't say the same for Curry, Durant, Harden, Lillard, Embiid, Jokic, Lebron, CP3, Giannis.... Even Westbrook has carried a not so talented team to the playoffs. Those are foundational stars.. AD doesn't appear to make that list. |
The problem with this argument is that you attribute the team's success entirely to the #1 guy -- so having Kevin Durant, Klay Thompson, and Draymond Green as teammates is exactly the same as having Eric Gordon, Ryan Anderson, and Greivis Vásquez as teammates.
I mean are guys like Embiid and Lillard really more "foundational players" than AD. I'm not sure you can make a strong case for that without defining "foundational player" in such a way that they automatically win.
Beyond that, when people talk about "foundational players" they aren't asking if a player is capable of leading a team that goes 0-4 in the first round of the playoffs.
They are asking if you can reasonable assemble a team around that player that has a chance of being a genuine contender. |
I'm talking about a star impacting a team enough to make it to the playoffs, as the #1 option. Steph doesn't have Klay or Durant and the team is being successful with Steph as the #1 option. Embiid was 8-2 as #1 option this season, without Ben Simmons and sixers are on a 5 game losing streak with him being out. A foundational player can get a team to the playoffs as the #1 option. |
I don't think that's a meaningful, interesting or useful way of looking at "foundational players" myself, but to each their own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
