PorkChop wrote:Off the top of your head make me a list of bad shooters that when to the NBA and all of a sudden figured it out.. We know Ricky ain't one, not Brewer, Wes or Derek either. Seems to me , more guys loose their shooting stroke on the way to the NBA than gain one. ( ahem, see Stauskas)
Everyone seems to think that's so correctable. I don't see it that way. Shooting is a muscle memory action. Most of these guys have been shooting the same way since 4-5th grade.
Atleast coaches can put u in a position to succeed Defensively with the right schemes.
There have been players who were decent/okay shooters in college who carried it over to the NBA, which is essentially what I've been saying over and over. Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, Victor Oladipo, Rudy Gay, etc. Stanley Johnson isn't a bad shooter; he just isn't a great one. I think you have to take into account the player's work ethic when projecting how they'll improve/regress at the next level. Oladipo took huge strides in his shooting at IU and has carried it over to the NBA. Wes Johnson, Derrick Williams just never seemed to have that dog in them. Unfair to all prospects if you just assume they'll regress, though.
Unfair to say Okafor won't play defense than too I would suppose . Right?
"Unfair to say Okafor won't play defense than too I would suppose. Right?"
And now you're changing everything I've said this whole time. Read the thread.
I never once said Okafor "won't play defense." I said he isn't good at it, and he's not. Those here believe he can learn how to defend and get better. I've already said he can get better, but he will likely never be the anchor some hope that he'll be. I also said he'll likely be a good post defender. I've said that multiple times now. And he's also not a good team defender. My reasons were his slow feet and poor instincts. Maybe now you'll understand my point before posting a completely different idea.
Not to mention there's a difference in the way this argument is going. Stanley Johnson is shooting the ball well this year. That's by the eye test. That's by the numbers. You can argue the sample size, but he plays to his strengths and that's getting to the damn rim. We're allowed to praise Okafor for growing roots in the paint, but chastise Johnson for attacking the rim instead of jacking up more perimeter shots? Both players are playing to their strengths, and that's great!
The problem here is that some are expecting Johnson to be poor at something he's currently showing that he's OK at. On the other hand, Okafor is not a good defender right now, but they expect him to get better at 50% of the game of basketball just like that. It's not a fair argument at all.
Camden wrote:"Unfair to say Okafor won't play defense than too I would suppose. Right?"
And now you're changing everything I've said this whole time. Read the thread.
I never once said Okafor "won't play defense." I said he isn't good at it, and he's not. Those here believe he can learn how to defend and get better. I've already said he can get better, but he will likely never be the anchor some hope that he'll be. I also said he'll likely be a good post defender. I've said that multiple times now. And he's also not a good team defender. My reasons were his slow feet and poor instincts. Maybe now you'll understand my point before posting a completely different idea.
Not to mention there's a difference in the way this argument is going. Stanley Johnson is shooting the ball well this year. That's by the eye test. That's by the numbers. You can argue the sample size, but he plays to his strengths and that's getting to the damn rim. We're allowed to praise Okafor for growing roots in the paint, but chastise Johnson for attacking the rim instead of jacking up more perimeter shots? Both players are playing to their strengths, and that's great!
The problem here is that some are expecting Johnson to be poor at something he's currently showing that he's OK at. On the other hand, Okafor is not a good defender right now, but they expect him to get better at 50% of the game of basketball just like that. It's not a fair argument at all.
I agree, and that has been your stance throughout this thread. I happen to feel the same way.
But let's be honest about something...
In truth, the knicks and lakers will be in the bottom 5 of the league and will likely go 1 and 2 in the draft. I believe this is undeniable. I'm looking at 3-5 and I want Johnson, Towns, Russell ... in that order.
One name I haven't heard on this board is Frank Kaminsky of Wisconsin. If we don't take a big with our top 5 pick, what are the chances of him dropping to the 2nd?
BizarroJerry wrote:One name I haven't heard on this board is Frank Kaminsky of Wisconsin. If we don't take a big with our top 5 pick, what are the chances of him dropping to the 2nd?
I think he's really good.
I would love an opportunity to grab Kaminsky, which may have been possible with that Miami pick, but he won't be there in the 2nd. He's likely going to be drafted in the 10-20 range.
Okafor' defense really bothers me. A person with that size in college should be great on defense just by their size alone. With our defensive issues can we really afford a big that can't defend?
As far as Johnson, I love his defense and the intensity he plays with, but how does he fit offensively with Wiggins? I think a better pure shooter would fit better with Rubio and Wiggins.
I think offensively Russell is the best fit. His offensive skillset is very nice and he is a very good shooter with range. He and Rubio both have great vision and the ability to get teammates great looks. He has lapses on defense. If we want to build a championship team we need a first rate defense. Scoring gets you on ESPN, but defense wins for you. At times though Russell looks like he could be a great defender.
In summary if we get the first pick it will be hard to pass on a big like Okafor who is so skilled down low scoring, and is a great passer. I think he could be very good defensively if he just showed more aggression and willingness. I would like Johnson more if we didn't have Wiggins, I'm not sure if their games will mesh well together. Russell is probably my favorite prospect. This may be unpopular, but if the 76ers land the top pick I try and see if I can get Embiid off their hands. I would trade our top pick to get him provided his health looks ok.
Question: Let's say the ping pong balls do us a favor for the first time ever and we win the top pick. At the same time, the Lakers land pick 3-5. Is it unrealistic to think Flip trades 1 to LA for 3-5 and Randle? If it is possible, would you do it?
LA would essentially be going for the blue chip prospect. Give their fan base a face to root for post-Kobe era. Maybe they're able to sign a PF via FA.
In our case, we'd double down on Randle and Johnson/Russell (Johnson for me). Rubio-Wiggins-Johnson-Randle-Dieng starting lineup moving forward.
Just some thoughts. Perhaps unrealistic and unobtainable.
Cam, Flip has shown in the past that he is not adverse to moving down in the draft if suitable assets are offered (2013). So if they got the first pick and LA got 3-5, and Flip felt we were set at C with Dieng/Pek, I think he would entertain any attractive offers for #1. I think the Lakers would be giving up too much in the deal you suggest, but a deal like that wouldn't be out of the question.
I would defiantly deal down a few spots. If Okafor just played with more intensity on the defensive end I would be all in. He doesn't. I would trade down and get Russell. A backcourt of Rubio and Russell would mean a lot of good looks for the rest of the guys. If we got Randle and Russell I would be stoked.
I really do like Russell, but I'm becoming more of a believer that Wiggins is a SG and should continue to stay there.
I also get very excited about the physical mismatches we could create with Wiggins/Johnson. And they'd be quite the defensive duo on the wing having the ability to switch and lose nothing in the matchup.
