Cowherd: All the Lakers youngins are on the block this offseason... except Julia

[Splits]

672507847440142336

672508028675948544

:lol Chaz

[spursistan]

Already gave up on D'Bust :lol

[DMC]

Hoping for Durant and Al Horford.

[spurraider21]

who are these 4 young guys he's talking about... Julia, Clarkson, Russell, and ?

[100%duncan]

:lol

[Splits]

who are these 4 young guys he's talking about... Julia, Clarkson, Russell, and ?

Nance I would guess.

[Reck]

These "young" guys on the Lakers squad are all below average to plain terrible though. Good luck with that.

[apalisoc_9]

I would take my chance at russell..hes playing at a shitty environment unfair to judge him.

Q

[midnightpulp]

Classic Lakers. Impatient and unwilling to develop youth, looking for a free agent/trade quick fix.

:lol And prioritizing Randle.

If anything, that's the player they should be willing to move. Yeah, I jokingly call Russell a bust (Oak and Porz were still better picks) but he'll be a good player. Not a centerpiece or anything, but he has good size and length and very good court vision for such a young player. He does seem a bit slow, though. Randle is short-armed, undersized, has no jumper, no passing ability, a terrible defender, and has a limited offensive skill set. And even if he develops somewhat, I see his lack of length being an issue that will always plague him.

[UZER]

The thanks they get for picking up Kobes poop all over the floor this season.

[Killakobe81]

These "young" guys on the Lakers squad are all below average to plain terrible though. Good luck with that.

What a horrible take.
no one knows anything about these kids because Kobe wont let them shot and Byron's system is crappy.

[Killakobe81]

Oh and :lol Cowherd he sucks and is a big market shill ...
Real talk though Im not in love with any of them yet so wouldnt shed tears if they are traded just saying to early to make any definitive calls. The reality for me though who is a realistic get?

Those guys wont be enough to get anyone I would want to pay max money to. Lakers best bet is to ride out this season. Kobe leaves, Byron is fired and you get a young uptempo coach to develop and showcase the pieces. Even if they dont develop the way we want the faster pace will inflate their numbers and then you can trade for value.

Durant is not coming ...there is no quick fix. Hope you keep your pick and get Simmons or Ingram and you keep up the slow rebuild.

BTW, Fuck any Laker fans that dont have any patience to stick by the squad as we rebuild or want to jump ship for GSW post Kobe. I like the Dubs too but bleed purple and gold ..always.

[Raven]

These "young" guys on the Lakers squad are all below average to plain terrible though. Good luck with that.
indeed. Worst part, they have shown massive potential barriers that cannot be overcome. Dbust is slow and Randle is undersized.. no matter how much they want to work on the shooting, they will still be a slow guard and an undersized pf, which is pretty much the worst flaw those players could have.

[Raven]

Oh and :lol Cowherd he sucks and is a big market shill ...
Real talk though Im not in love with any of them yet so wouldnt shed tears if they are traded just saying to early to make any definitive calls. The reality for me though who is a realistic get?

Those guys wont be enough to get anyone I would want to pay max money to. Lakers best bet is to ride out this season. Kobe leaves, Byron is fired and you get a young uptempo coach to develop and showcase the pieces. Even if they dont develop the way we want the faster pace will inflate their numbers and then you can trade for value.

Durant is not coming ...there is no quick fix. Hope you keep your pick and get Simmons or Ingram and you keep up the slow rebuild.

BTW, Fuck any Laker fans that dont have any patience to stick by the squad as we rebuild or want to jump ship for GSW post Kobe. I like the Dubs too but bleed purple and gold ..always.
don't worry, you guys will max out clarckson next year.

[100%duncan]

Clarkson is good but he's not starter good. Probably 6th man is his ceiling

[Raven]

Clarkson is good but he's not starter good. Probably 6th man is his ceiling

i agree, he has bad 3point shooting and can't defend though. For a young player he has shown some qualities.

[100%duncan]

i agree, he has bad 3point shooting and can't defend though. For a young player he has shown some qualities.

He has the physical build to be a good defensive player and shooting can improve. Hope he shines

[Buddy Mignon]

i agree, he has bad 3point shooting and can't defend though. For a young player he has shown some qualities.

Do you niggas even watch basketball? Clarkson shoots over 40% from three and right at 50% from the two. He's one of the top guards in the league at getting to the rim as well. Our youngsters would flourish in a fast paced system. The fact that Scott can't figure this out should nullify him from ever coaching in this league again.

[RsxPiimp]

Our youngsters would flourish in a fast paced system. The fact that Scott can't figure this out should nullify him from ever coaching in this league again.

Pretty much this. D'Angelo in particular should be averaging at least 9 dimes/gm under a different system. Scott is fucking awful.

[Splits]

Yeah, it is Scott's fault Kirby passed 16 times in the same game he took 27 shots.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, it is Scott's fault Kirby passed 16 times in the same game he took 27 shots.

Double it on Kobe tonight?

Same bet. o/u 40%, 10 shots.

[DPG21920]

This is the problem on both fronts (FA & Trades) beyond the Kobe issue; their young "core" has very little value. It's not Byrons fault Kobe sucks and he's under strict orders to play him & protect him. It's the Kobe system, not the Byron system.

[DPG21920]

Julius is basically a poor mans Aaron Gordon who in turn is a poor mans Blake. Julius is a clear two rungs underneath a high ceiling.

[Splits]

Double it on Kobe tonight?

Same bet. o/u 40%, 10 shots.

Sure, what are we at $10?

[midnightpulp]

Sure, what are we at $10?

Yeah.

[jag]

Julius is basically a poor mans Aaron Gordon who in turn is a poor mans Blake. Julius is a clear two rungs underneath a high ceiling.

Aaron Gordon? Julius is and will be better than Gordon.

[DPG21920]

Aaron Gordon? Julius is and will be better than Gordon.

I disagree.

[jag]

I disagree.

Fair enough. Julius actually has legitimate skills around the rim. A lot more offensively polished.

[DPG21920]

Julius per 36: 15/12/3/1steal/0blocks on 44%FG & 67%FT (he can't shoot 3's - he's missed every 3 point attempt). PER 14.7. All stats rounded up.

Gordon per 36: 14/9/2/1steal/2blocks on 46% FG & 67% FT (28% 3PT - not a good 3PT shooter, but has shown early stages of being able to hit that shot). PER 18. All stats rounded up.

It's pretty clear to me, beyond the stats, that Gordon has a ceiling that is considerably higher than Randle's. Both because of his elite athleticism, likelihood that he can be a servicable 3PT shooter & his defense which grades out significantly better than Randle's.

[DPG21920]

Fair enough. Julius actually has legitimate skills around the rim. A lot more offensively polished.

Not really tbh. He's basically a better ball handling version of Blair. Can't shoot, has no real chance to extend to 3PT range, isn't big enough/athletic enough to consistently score inside efficiently. His value is energy, rebounding and ball handling/vision. All good things, but with his poor defense, lack of shooting and athleticism he has a very low ceiling IMO.

[jag]

Not really tbh. He's basically a better ball handling version of Blair. Can't shoot, has no real chance to extend to 3PT range, isn't big enough/athletic enough to consistently score inside efficiently. His value is energy, rebounding and ball handling/vision. All good things, but with his poor defense, lack of shooting and athleticism he has a very low ceiling IMO.

He can shoot from midrange, it just hasnt completely come around yet. He had a good midrange shot at Kentucky and in HS with the Titans. I think he can be what Zach Randolph was. You're right that his athleticism is limited, but he has good hands. On the right team, with a good defensive center, I think he can do well.

[DPG21920]

He can shoot from midrange, it just hasnt completely come around yet. He had a good midrange shot at Kentucky and in HS with the Titans. I think he can be what Zach Randolph was. You're right that his athleticism is limited, but he has good hands. On the right team, with a good defensive center, I think he can do well.

Well he has not proven at all that he can shoot while in the NBA, certainly not against NBA talent and size. Point was/is, even if you believe that, nothing has shown at all (both eye ball test and statistically) that he grades out higher than Gordon at this point.

So from me watching both and seeing the numbers, seems pretty clear at this point that reason points to Gordon>Julius and I don't think it's really close. Gordon isn't a super stud either, but he looks like he may at least have an all-star game if things break right.

[Killakobe81]

Not really tbh. He's basically a better ball handling version of Blair. Can't shoot, has no real chance to extend to 3PT range, isn't big enough/athletic enough to consistently score inside efficiently. His value is energy, rebounding and ball handling/vision. All good things, but with his poor defense, lack of shooting and athleticism he has a very low ceiling IMO.

You got a crystall ball. I was just reading a thread where a respected poster said the same about Draymond Green. Anyone think Bowen would be a good 3 point shooter? How about Kidd later in his career?

[jag]

Well he has not proven at all that he can shoot while in the NBA, certainly not against NBA talent and size. Point was/is, even if you believe that, nothing has shown at all (both eye ball test and statistically) that he grades out higher than Gordon at this point.

So from me watching both and seeing the numbers, seems pretty clear at this point that reason points to Gordon>Julius and I don't think it's really close. Gordon isn't a super stud either, but he looks like he may at least have an all-star game if things break right.

I haven't watched Gordon much so it's tough to make a straight-up comparison. I just think Julius is more skilled than given credit for. Maybe those skills wont transition to the NBA, but it's silly to say that with the current sample size.

[DPG21920]

You got a crystall ball. I was just reading a thread where a respected poster said the same about Draymond Green. Anyone think Bowen would be a good 3 point shooter? How about Kidd later in his career?

Could I be wrong? Absoultely. Will I be? Doubt it. You naming a few outliers doesn't change the fact that more often then not, guys like Randle don't develop that skill.

It's why guys like Green go from undrafted to stars and it's incredibly rare.

[DPG21920]

I haven't watched Gordon much so it's tough to make a straight-up comparison. I just think Julius is more skilled than given credit for. Maybe those skills wont transition to the NBA, but it's silly to say that with the current sample size.

Huh? All we can go off of is what we have seen. You were quick to say Julius was better than Gordon on the same sample size while admitting you haven't really watched him very much.

The numbers are what they are, sample size or not. Beyond just the numbers, if you watch both players, it has been pretty clear before I even checked the stats that Gordon was better with a higher ceiling. Could I be wrong? Again, yes, but nothing at all to this point other than some bias would be a logical reason to say Randle is better or has a better ceiling. Ceilings are just that though and sometimes guys obviously don't reach them despite having "potential".

[DPG21920]

The real alarming part, that Killa isn't mentioning, is that the guys he mentioned (Bruce, Draymond) are also great defenders. Julius has proven to be pretty poor there which is alarming too.

[Killakobe81]

The real alarming part, that Killa isn't mentioning, is that the guys he mentioned (Bruce, Draymond) are also great defenders. Julius has proven to be pretty poor there which is alarming too.

bad coaching and basically his rookie year. I am not even saying you are wrong just that it's to early to tell ...

[DPG21920]

I agree - it's early, I can only comment on the information I have at this point though. The fact he's on a bad team, with a bad coach and terrible teammate is not a bonus either btw. It's really detrimental to a player with a bad injury already and another wasted year full of bad habits.

[Killakobe81]

I agree - it's early, I can only comment on the information I have at this point though. The fact he's on a bad team, with a bad coach and terrible teammate is not a bonus either btw. It's really detrimental to a player with a bad injury already and another wasted year full of bad habits.

Didnt say it was a bonus just saying to early to evaluate. But you speak as if the outcome is already determined and it seems a bit biased or agenda driven. I could say wow, Oakafor is a dumbass with repeated off-court mis-steps ...but is that the finished product? He is like 19 or 20. but all the information I have so far, says he gets in to fights in clubs, cant handle heckling and drives recklessly. Does that mean he will ALWAYS do these things? Let these kids develop as men on and off the court. Losing 18 straight for a kid that has always won like Oak has got to be tough ... although I tease and call him "franchise" because this forum was on his nuts ...doesnt mean I dont realize these young kids need to develop fully before we judge.

[DPG21920]

What bias would I have in favor of Aaron Gordon? This is me watching both players play a lot to start this year. Evaluating what I see their skillsets/ceilings to be and then looking at the stats to help clarify the picture.

Again, Julius has a bad injury, is developing bad habits and losing another crucial year towards developing. Beyond that, just watching him play, I don't see a capable shooter (at least not as good as I think Gordon is progressing). He rebounds well, handles the ball well for his size and is a good passer.

But developing a shot is very hard, I don't like his form, he's in a terrible spot for development & his defense is flat out bad. Could all of that turn around? Sure. Is it really reasonable to think it will and that he will catch up to a guy like Gordon who's already outpacing him and has other things (athleticism/defense) that would naturally give him a higher ceiling? No, I don't think that is reasonable and a lot of that you can't change (lack of athleticism/environment for development).

[Killakobe81]

What bias would I have in favor of Aaron Gordon? This is me watching both players play a lot to start this year. Evaluating what I see their skillsets/ceilings to be and then looking at the stats to help clarify the picture.

Again, Julius has a bad injury, is developing bad habits and losing another crucial year towards developing. Beyond that, just watching him play, I don't see a capable shooter (at least not as good as I think Gordon is progressing). He rebounds well, handles the ball well for his size and is a good passer.

But developing a shot is very hard, I don't like his form, he's in a terrible spot for development & his defense is flat out bad. Could all of that turn around? Sure. Is it really reasonable to think it will and that he will catch up to a guy like Gordon who's already outpacing him and has other things (athleticism/defense) that would naturally give him a higher ceiling? No, I don't think that is reasonable and a lot of that you can't change (lack of athleticism/environment for development).

Randle is athletic. Not Gordon explosive but a better athlete than Duncan or Aldridge who are superior players than Gordon or Randle. His defense is bad but he has potential to be solid I think with good coaching he could be good at defending pnr because he has quick feet. I dont think you have the full picture of Randle's game ...

here is what arguably the 2nd best PF since Tim had to say:

Dirk Nowitzki on Julius Randle: "He's going to be tough in this league. He puts the ball on the floor like no other PF in this league."

— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015
Nowitzki continuing on Randle: "He's strong, he's athletic, he can finish. He's a tough match-up for a lot of 4s in this league."

— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015

Sounds very unathletic to me ...

[Killakobe81]

should I listen to Dirk who played against him or DPG?

[midnightpulp]

He can shoot from midrange, it just hasnt completely come around yet. He had a good midrange shot at Kentucky and in HS with the Titans. I think he can be what Zach Randolph was. You're right that his athleticism is limited, but he has good hands. On the right team, with a good defensive center, I think he can do well.

?

IIRC, there was a period when he was playing at KY that he didn't make a jumper from beyond 15 feet for like 2 months.


Jump shooting is another area of his game that stands out, as he shot only 17.3% on jump shots logged by Synergy, with the 0.40 points per possession he scored on those attempts being the lowest mark in this power forward class. He didn't attempt very many at only 1.3 shots per game, but him being a complete lack of a threat outside of the paint is something that is currently holding his game back.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/#ixzz3tO49hFo8
http://www.draftexpress.com

Always possible to develop one, though. I didn't see Leonard becoming the jumpshooter he is, especially with those giant hands, which has typically prevented players from becoming elite shooters. But the Lakers development program is stone age compared to the Spurs.

[midnightpulp]

should I listen to Dirk who played against him or DPG?

Didn't Dirk slaughter him in the first matchup? :lol

[Killakobe81]

Didn't Dirk slaughter him in the first matchup? :lol

he did. That is why I agree with DPG on the defensive side ... but why would dirk lie or exaggerate? He schooled the rook but was still impressed.

[jag]

?

IIRC, there was a period when he was playing at KY that he didn't make a jumper from beyond 15 feet for like 2 months.



Always possible to develop one, though. I didn't see Leonard becoming the jumpshooter he is, especially with those giant hands, which has typically prevented players from becoming elite shooters. But the Lakers development program is stone age compared to the Spurs.

Welp...this dude sucks. Lakers are f*cked

[midnightpulp]

he did. That is why I agree with DPG on the defensive side ... but why would dirk lie or exaggerate? He schooled the rook but was still impressed.

Dirk's nice. And players are typically politically correct. But notice who the teams are that Randle has good games against. They all lack size and length. For instance, any time Vonleh was on him when they played Portland, Randle had trouble (Aminu was on him most of the game for some inexplicable reason). He was terrible against Miami (Whiteside/Bosh), Detroit (Drummond/Morris), New York (Porzingis/Lopez), etc.

He needs an 18-20 footer desperately. Could happen. But his lack of size/length will always prevent him from really becoming a centerpiece player. His absolute peak (if the cards fall right) is Paul Milsap.

Not bad, but not worth holding onto if you get can some talent in exchange for him to put around Clarkson/Russell.

[DPG21920]

So one guy (a slow guy, whom everyone looks fast too) saying something negates something all of scouts saw and what the majority of people say?

That's like finding one person who says Kobe is a good teammate and unselfish then saying "See, this guy said the opposite of what we all know, see and have read!"

[Killakobe81]

Dirk's nice. And players are typically politically correct. But notice who the teams are that Randle has good games against. They all lack size and length. For instance, any time Vonleh was on him when they played Portland, Randle had trouble (Aminu was on him most of the game for some inexplicable reason). He was terrible against Miami (Whiteside/Bosh), Detroit (Drummond/Morris), New York (Porzingis/Lopez), etc.

He needs an 18-20 footer desperately. Could happen. But his lack of size/length will always prevent him from really becoming a centerpiece player. His absolute peak (if the cards fall right) is Paul Milsap.

Not bad, but not worth holding onto if you get can some talent in exchange for him to put around Clarkson/Russell.

I think a bigger Milsap is not bad. Not sure I see the star the LAkers FO sees without a jump-shot but I get why they value him. he has play-making ability that reminds them of Odom but in a bigger although shorter package. I dont see anybody that we could trade for that would be worth it. With Kobe hogging shots and Scotts crappy offense Randle wont improve or showcase his game much and like is obvious he needs to develop his off -hand and his range. But he is a hard-worker has talent so I say he has some chance to be a good player. I think most likely a #3 on a good team a #2 on a mediocre on with very little chance of ever being a #1 on a team that matters. But that is just my early thoughts dont know if he will develop in to even a #3 yet ...

[DPG21920]

Randle is athletic. Not Gordon explosive but a better athlete than Duncan or Aldridge who are superior players than Gordon or Randle. His defense is bad but he has potential to be solid I think with good coaching he could be good at defending pnr because he has quick feet. I dont think you have the full picture of Randle's game ...

here is what arguably the 2nd best PF since Tim had to say:

Dirk Nowitzki on Julius Randle: "He's going to be tough in this league. He puts the ball on the floor like no other PF in this league."

— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015
Nowitzki continuing on Randle: "He's strong, he's athletic, he can finish. He's a tough match-up for a lot of 4s in this league."

— Serena Winters (@SerenaWinters) November 2, 2015

Sounds very unathletic to me ...

You don't really see what you are saying sometimes. "Oh, well people thought Jason Kidd, Draymond & Bowen couldn't shoot too!". "Duncan & LMA are not athletic".

You keep comparing him to guys who are 10x more gifted, skilled, and defensive. You can't change his size, his athleticism compared to most NBA guys, etc...He's not anywhere close to all the guys you keep throwing out there as outliers.

[DPG21920]

And I don't see Millsap as anywhere close to his ceiling. They are different players because Millsap can shoot and even to 3PT range.

Julius couldn't shoot in college, it looks worse (so far) in the pros so I don't think it's reasonable at all to assume he will develop that skill especially out to 3PT. Anything is possible of course, but if you were a betting man no one would bet on that.

[Raven]

Julius is basically a poor mans Aaron Gordon who in turn is a poor mans Blake. Julius is a clear two rungs underneath a high ceiling.
I don't see how you can compare aaron gordon to randle. they are nothing alike imo.

[DPG21920]

I don't see how you can compare aaron gordon to randle. they are nothing alike imo.

I think that is definitely the style of player he resembles the most. They have unique ball handling/playmaking for their size/position. Sure, he's not the athlete Gordon is, but in terms of some skill set, somewhat similar there.

[midnightpulp]

I think a bigger Milsap is not bad. Not sure I see the star the LAkers FO sees without a jump-shot but I get why they value him. he has play-making ability that reminds them of Odom but in a bigger although shorter package. I dont see anybody that we could trade for that would be worth it. With Kobe hogging shots and Scotts crappy offense Randle wont improve or showcase his game much and like is obvious he needs to develop his off -hand and his range. But he is a hard-worker has talent so I say he has some chance to be a good player. I think most likely a #3 on a good team a #2 on a mediocre on with very little chance of ever being a #1 on a team that matters. But that is just my early thoughts dont know if he will develop in to even a #3 yet ...

I don't see Randle's playmaking ability. Every time he gets the ball, he pretty much bull rushes to the rim (Lakers fans have been complaining about it in the game threads on LG). Odom was just natural at it, and a much better ball handler (I don't agree with Dirk that Randle puts the ball on the floor better than any PF in the league, unless he's talking about Randle's first step, which is moderately quick).

But yeah, never know how a player is gonna develop. I never thought Kawhi could become a legit MVP candidate. I thought his peak might be something 18 and 8 but playing elite level defense. A middle-class Scottie Pippen. Now, Leonard is on peak Scottie's level.

[Killakobe81]

So one guy (a slow guy, whom everyone looks fast too) saying something negates something all of scouts saw and what the majority of people say?

That's like finding one person who says Kobe is a good teammate and unselfish then saying "See, this guy said the opposite of what we all know, see and have read!"

All the scouts saw? So no scouts thought he could be better than what you just said? Hmm
First one I found on Google: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/5/29/5756322/julius-randle-scouting-report-nba-draft-2014

1. Randle is a much better athlete than people realize, and it showed in the first few minutes of this game. He raced down court, chasing down an Ole Miss fast break and swatted the ball at the rim. A few possessions later he caught an alley-oop in traffic. Watch how quickly he gets off the ground: (see story for video)

2. He's often compared to Zach Randolph because both are left-handed post players, but Randle is much lighter on his feet. He isn't a great rim protector, but he slides his feet really well, allowing him to stick with quicker players out to the perimeter. That skill allowed Kentucky coach John Calipari to implement a defensive system that relied heavily on switching ball screens.

3. Randle's hands are so strong and he's so aggressive that it's nearly impossible to beat him on the glass one-on-one.

4. type of defense college teams played all season against Randle. He averaged 24.0 points and 14.3 rebounds through the first three games, then teams starting focusing all of their defensive attention on him. No one in college basketball faced more double and triple teams this year. Kentucky had few shooters to keep defenses honest, so it was easier to send more attention to Randle in the paint.At the beginning of the year, Randle was a turnover machine, but that improved through the course of the season, once he began to learn how to deal with extra defenders. Through the first 17 games, he averaged 3.3 turnovers. But in the remaining 23, he turned the ball over just 1.9 times per game.

There were times in this game where Randle was out of control, forcing his way to the rim rather than taking what the defense gave him. Florida was one of the best college defenses last season; Randle wasn't going to beat the Gators by driving through three defenders.

5. Randle heavily favors his left hand. When he drives right, he'll come back left 99 percent of the time. If he doesn't, he'll try to finish with his left hand on the right side. But he gets away with it because of his unusually stable body control. He can contort his body, use his size advantage, and still get off a controlled shot with his left hand.

6. Randle could have forced up a shot through traffic, but instead, he fired a laser right into Harrison's shooting pocket for the eventual game-winning jumper. Randle made a lot of great plays in his NCAA Tournament run, but that one tops them all.

Randle is a forward with a rare combination of power and finesse. He can plow through defenders or spin around them. He shot 9.4 free throws per 40 minutes and sank 71 percent of those attempts. He can grab a rebound and bring the ball up court or sit in the post and work his defender from the block.

7. He has his shortcomings, of course. Randle will never be an above-average shot blocker, his shot selection still needs some work and he needs to improve his overall perimeter game. But the tools are there. He can come into the NBA and be a productive offensive player from Day 1.

Does any of that mean he wont bust? Of course not. This scouting report shares many of the same concerns you have ...but of course you left out the positives.

[Killakobe81]

You don't really see what you are saying sometimes. "Oh, well people thought Jason Kidd, Draymond & Bowen couldn't shoot too!". "Duncan & LMA are not athletic".

You keep comparing him to guys who are 10x more gifted, skilled, and defensive. You can't change his size, his athleticism compared to most NBA guys, etc...He's not anywhere close to all the guys you keep throwing out there as outliers.

Again where is the lack of athleticism you speak of? he lacks length absolutely. no off hand and limited range.He also is bad on defense but has the feet to be solid in pnr ...

[Raven]

I think that is definitely the style of player he resembles the most. They have unique ball handling/playmaking for their size/position. Sure, he's not the athlete Gordon is, but in terms of some skill set, somewhat similar there.

Aaron Gordon, just like Tobias Harris, just like Kevin Durant, like Rudy Gay are oversized SF, Randle is an undersized PF. He has the same height, but is much heavier, he is like David West but with worse wingspan and no jumper. Pretty much JJ Hickson. And his ballhandling is meh, it's been overhyped because he's on a bad team, against even a decent team, those penetrations are charges everytime. Aaron Gordon has stone hands but is athletic and fast.

[Killakobe81]

I don't see Randle's playmaking ability. Every time he gets the ball, he pretty much bull rushes to the rim (Lakers fans have been complaining about it in the game threads on LG). Odom was just natural at it, and a much better ball handler (I don't agree with Dirk that Randle puts the ball on the floor better than any PF in the league, unless he's talking about Randle's first step, which is moderately quick).

But yeah, never know how a player is gonna develop. I never thought Kawhi could become a legit MVP candidate. I thought his peak might be something 18 and 8 but playing elite level defense. A middle-class Scottie Pippen. Now, Leonard is on peak Scottie's level.

Of course he does we have no offensive structure. So when Randle gets a chance to drive he has to take it cuz he doesnt trust his shot and Kobe dominates the FGA's. LG Especially me used to complain about the same thing with LO what Odom had was length which Randle lacks.

[Killakobe81]

You don't really see what you are saying sometimes. "Oh, well people thought Jason Kidd, Draymond & Bowen couldn't shoot too!". "Duncan & LMA are not athletic".

You keep comparing him to guys who are 10x more gifted, skilled, and defensive. You can't change his size, his athleticism compared to most NBA guys, etc...He's not anywhere close to all the guys you keep throwing out there as outliers.

LOL you the one that he was unathletic, I never said he was as good as LMA or Duncan not even as good as Draymond. My point was that athleticism which he has some wont determine his success. Skill will because some of those guys I mentioned were not gifted athletes or at least not anymore so than Randle. I also gave you examples of plenty of players who improved their skill level.

[DPG21920]

Killa, none of what you posted really differs from what I said are his strengths. And people saying "he's better than people realize athletically" both implies a) that majority of people like I said comment on his lack of athelticism and b) that he's still not that athletic.

People like you are crazy to me. You ignore college (couldn't shoot there). Ignore the pros (even worse here) and still say "well, anything can happen - you aren't a fortune teller!".

By that logic, how do scouts analyze talent and then GM's/Coaches draft? By your logic, anything can happen so just take whomever and if they work hard enough bam! you have an all-star. Obvioulsy, even with limited sample sizes, people have to make judgment calls based on what they have seen over the sample size they have.

Do they get stuff wrong? Like the Millsap's of the world and others? Sure, but that doesn't change the overwhelming odds/facts that most 2nd round picks and even a lot of first round picks don't make a lot of noise or stick in the league beyond a couple years.

[DPG21920]

LOL you the one that he was unathletic, I never said he was as good as LMA or Duncan not even as good as Draymond. My point was that athleticism which he has some wont determine his success. Skill will because some of those guys I mentioned were not gifted athletes or at least not anymore so than Randle. I also gave you examples of plenty of players who improved their skill level.


No, you listed guys that have an INSANE amount of skills, much bigger size and/or defensive ability. That is just being blind and unrelasitic. Their lack of athleticism was negated by insane skills (which Randle doesn't have), great defense (which Randle doesn't have) and very good size (Randles doesn't have). It's a terrible parallel to draw.

You may end up being right, but its' blind dumb luck and not because you put together a well reasoned argument or really analyzed anything.

[Killakobe81]

Killa, none of what you posted really differs from what I said are his strengths. And people saying "he's better than people realize athletically" both implies a) that majority of people like I said comment on his lack of athelticism and b) that he's still not that athletic.

People like you are crazy to me. You ignore college (couldn't shoot there). Ignore the pros (even worse here) and still say "well, anything can happen - you aren't a fortune teller!".

By that logic, how do scouts analyze talent and then GM's/Coaches draft? By your logic, anything can happen so just take whomever and if they work hard enough bam! you have an all-star. Obvioulsy, even with limited sample sizes, people have to make judgment calls based on what they have seen over the sample size they have.

Do they get stuff wrong? Like the Millsap's of the world and others? Sure, but that doesn't change the overwhelming odds/facts that most 2nd round picks and even a lot of first round picks don't make a lot of noise or stick in the league beyond a couple years.

Are you even reading what I post? Or are you to busy typing a rebuttal? That is what drives ME crazy ...Did I JUST SAY THAT HE NEEDS TO IMPROVE HIS RANGE? I'll bump ...

[Killakobe81]

Again where is the lack of athleticism you speak of? he lacks length absolutely. no off hand and limited range.He also is bad on defense but has the feet to be solid in pnr ...

where am I ignoring what you said ...Deeps? Pretty straightforward and not buried in one of my longer posts ...

[Raven]

LOL you the one that he was unathletic, I never said he was as good as LMA or Duncan not even as good as Draymond. My point was that athleticism which he has some wont determine his success. Skill will because some of those guys I mentioned were not gifted athletes or at least not anymore so than Randle. I also gave you examples of plenty of players who improved their skill level.

well you either are longer or you have to be more athletic than your opposition if you want to contest a shot. He can't do either.

[DPG21920]

where am I ignoring what you said ...Deeps? Pretty straightforward and not buried in one of my longer posts ...

So why make the comment to me about "Seeing the future" when it comes to his shooting? What have you seen either in college, scouting reports or at the nba level that makes you reasonably believe he can be a decent shooter?

[Killakobe81]

No, you listed guys that have an INSANE amount of skills, much bigger size and/or defensive ability. That is just being blind and unrelasitic. Their lack of athleticism was negated by insane skills (which Randle doesn't have), great defense (which Randle doesn't have) and very good size (Randles doesn't have). It's a terrible parallel to draw.

You may end up being right, but its' blind dumb luck and not because you put together a well reasoned argument or really analyzed anything.

Again I never said he would be those guys. Did I say that he was as good as any of them? I gave you examples of unathletic forwards.I also gave you some of players that improved a negative attribute. We started this dance with it's early.
We agree on his shortcomings. but yet you get all self-righteous and argue basically that I should condemn him 20 games in to bust status. Which makes more sense? me saying I see some positives and I definitely agree on some of the short-comings but wanting to wait and see or saying definitively he will not improve?

[Killakobe81]

So why make the comment to me about "Seeing the future" when it comes to his shooting? What have you seen either in college, scouting reports or at the nba level that makes you reasonably believe he can be a decent shooter?

Nothing.But I have seen videos of him making deep shots in practice, but to hear Shaq or Dwight tell it...they make FT's in practice as well. Until he shows it, he can't do it. All I said was he has played 20 games to early to tell. I saw Jason Kidd play in HS and did not have a 3 point shot at all same in college. Does that mean I am saying Randle will be Jason Kidd or improve at a similar rate? No. Just saying the kid has talent. Now he has to put the work in. He also has to show he has the right mental make-up which I am also unsure about tbh ...but again early.

[DPG21920]

There's a huge difference in trying to frame an argument using players like Duncan/LMA/Kidd compared to Randle and saying you don't think he's a bust.

I also said nothing about a bust. Never used the word. I evaluated him based on what I've seen to this point very plainly. I said he has a lower ceiling than Gordon. But you saying "you see some positives" isn't the issue. It's you saying "what are you a fortune teller" and then saying things like "anything can happen" when in reality, nothing we have seen to date suggests the arc you see.

Huge difference in studying something and seeing something that can reasonably lead you to a conclusion vs just saying "well, you can't be certain because we just don't know" with nothing tangible (small sample size and all) to back that up.

[DPG21920]

I clearly said he has some good skills and named them (rebounding, ball handling, passing), but then said his short comings (lack of size, defense, lack of shot & yes, lack of athleticism compared to his peers) would prevent him from being a player with a high ceiling. I don't think that's biased and I don't think it's unreasonable based on every piece of evidence we have so far.

Of course he could be an anomaly, that doesn't make the current evaluation about him wrong.

[Killakobe81]

There's a huge difference in trying to frame an argument using players like Duncan/LMA/Kidd compared to Randle and saying you don't think he's a bust.

I also said nothing about a bust. Never used the word. I evaluated him based on what I've seen to this point very plainly. I said he has a lower ceiling than Gordon. But you saying "you see some positives" isn't the issue. It's you saying "what are you a fortune teller" and then saying things like "anything can happen" when in reality, nothing we have seen to date suggests the arc you see.

Huge difference in studying something and seeing something that can reasonably lead you to a conclusion vs just saying "well, you can't be certain because we just don't know" with nothing tangible (small sample size and all) to back that up.

Where did I say anything can happen? I realize you did not say bust ... I chose that word. But that is what it sounded like to me. Besides Raven is lurking and he pretty much has called him that. small sample size ...exactly.

Another player example is Blake Griffin who had no jumper or range in HS or college. Now he shoots pretty decent from up to 20 feet. Guess what he improved his range. over time ...imagine that. He also has short arms (much better athlete though) and limited range. Again was Griffin a much better prospect than Randle? ABSOLUTELY. the comparison is not to say he will be Griffin ...just to say that if I watched college or Blake early in his career a reliable 20 footer looked far from certain. what would make me believe Griffin would be able to hit 20 footers in college or 20 games in to his 2nd year?! By that logic his ceiling is just a dunker nothing else. he is not agreat rebounder or shot blockers and sucks on defense ...

In fact he also sucked at Ft's which Randle is Ok at is not a good rim protector or defender.

... sometimes good Ft shooting can predict better jump shooting but not always.back to Julius ... think the fact he is a decent Ft shooter (form wise) makes me believe his range will improve . but I dont know if he will ..why?

Because it's to fucking early.

[Raven]

Where did I say anything can happen? I realize you did not say bust ... I chose that word. But that is what it sounded like to me. Besides Raven is lurking and he pretty much has called him that. small sample size ...exactly. Another example Blake Griffin had no jumper or range in HS. Know he shoots pretty decent from up to 20 feet. Guess what he improved his range. he also had short arms (much better athlete) and limited range. Agin was Griffin a much better prospect than Randle? ABSOLUTELY. the comparison is not to say he will be Griffin just to say that if I watched college or Blake early in his career a reliable 20 footer looked far from certain. in fact he also sucked at Ft's which Randle is Ok at ... sometimes good Ft shooting can predict better jump shooting but not always.But I think teh fact he is a decent Ft shooter makes me believe his range will improve .

yeah, he's clearly a bust. Now, admittedly, I have high standards and maybe the guy will find a role as enforcer off the bench like Hickson and Blair, if he'll work hard. Maybe he'll even develop a decent jumper, but unless he goes on a complete reconstruction of his body, becoming a sf (never happens), he will never be a legitimate starter. He just doesn't have the potential, sorry. I consider him a bust, especially because you have to consider the fact that there were much better prospects still on the board.

[DPG21920]

Perfect example of Randle's lack of athleticism - he's supposed to be a good finisher and polished down low. However, while he takes almost 50% of his FG's from 3 feet or less, he only finishes at 53%. Compare that to Aaron Gordon? Gordon takes about the same amount of his shots from inside 3FT has Randle, but finishes at 61%.

The league average is at 61%. So for a guy that couldn't shoot in college, can't shoot in the NBA and is supposed to be a polished inside guy, he finishes well below league average in the one spot he's supposed to be good at and where he takes almost 50% of his shots.

[Killakobe81]

yeah, he's clearly a bust. Now, admittedly, I have high standards and maybe the guy will find a role as enforcer off the bench like Hickson and Blair, if he'll work hard. Maybe he'll even develop a decent jumper, but unless he goes on a complete reconstruction of his body, becoming a sf (never happens), he will never be a legitimate starter. He just doesn't have the potential, sorry. I consider him a bust, especially because you have to consider the fact that there were much better prospects still on the board.

Such as ?

[DPG21920]

This is all to say, it's not me being biased. This is an opinion of me watching him and doing research to form an opinion. Not just pointing to All-Star caliber outliers to say "well, they overcame a short-coming, why can't Randle". He can, it just seems really, really unlikely at this point.

[Killakobe81]

Perfect example of Randle's lack of athleticism - he's supposed to be a good finisher and polished down low. However, while he takes almost 50% of his FG's from 3 feet or less, he only finishes at 53%. Compare that to Aaron Gordon? Gordon takes about the same amount of his shots from inside 3FT has Randle, but finishes at 61%.

The league average is at 61%. So for a guy that couldn't shoot in college, can't shoot in the NBA and is supposed to be a polished inside guy, he finishes well below league average in the one spot he's supposed to be good at and where he takes almost 50% of his shots.

Gordon is a dunker of course his FG% is higher. Plus he plays on a better team in a better offense what do those stats prove? Especially when Gordon played more (he got hurt too) as a rookie than Randle this ia pretty much Randle's rookie year. Let's compare gordon this year to Randle next one ...

[Raven]

Such as ?

lack of athleticism and length. You could also add IQ and shooting, but those are always improved with time.

[Killakobe81]

This is all to say, it's not me being biased. This is an opinion of me watching him and doing research to form an opinion. Not just pointing to All-Star caliber outliers to say "well, they overcame a short-coming, why can't Randle". He can, it just seems really, really unlikely at this point.

Bowen is not an all-star. Draymond green is not one yet either ...

[Killakobe81]

lack of athleticism and length. You could also add IQ and shooting, but those are always improved with time.

No what prospects were better After 7?

[Raven]

Gordon is a dunker of course his FG% is higher. Plus he plays on a better team in a better offense what do those stats prove? Especially when Gordon played more (he got hurt too) as a rookie than Randle this ia pretty much Randle's rookie year. Let's compare gordon this year to Randle next one ...
:lol Gordon is in a much much harder position to produce. Randle is there just statpadding the whole game wtf are you talking about :lol

[DPG21920]

Gordon is a dunker of course his FG% is higher. Plus he plays on a better team in a better offense what do those stats prove? Especially when Gordon played more (he got hurt too) as a rookie than Randle this ia pretty much Randle's rookie year. Let's compare gordon this year to Randle next one ...

Wow. It's really hard to have a conversation with someone that doesn't really care :lol. All of these excuses for Randle while simply ignoring the stats and what everything has shown us to this point.

[Raven]

No what prospects were better After 7?

Payton, Hood, Lavine, Šarić and Anderson are the easy picks. You could argue many more, especially bigs, but let's stick with those that are undeniable.

[DPG21920]

Bowen is not an all-star. Draymond green is not one yet either ...

You're being obtuse. I said All-Star caliber. Draymond was a legit DPOY candidate last year and in the MVP running this year. Yes, he's all-star caliber whether China votes him in or not. Bowen was a DPOY level player - all-star doesn't really care about that normally.

[Killakobe81]

Payton, Hood, Lavine, Šarić and Anderson are the easy picks. You could argue many more, especially bigs, but let's stick with those that are undeniable.

Hood, Lavine and Anderson :lol

[DPG21920]

The fact Randle is on a bad team, had an injury and has a bad coach isn't a case for him improving. It's a big reason why I don't think he has a chance to become an outlier.

[DPG21920]

Hood, Lavine and Anderson :lol

Hood & Lavine both look much better than Julius right now. I don't fault LA for the pick, but I wouldn't be laughing at any player with how Julius looks on both ends.

[RsxPiimp]

Deeps, whats your honest take on Clarkson?

[Raven]

Hood, Lavine and Anderson :lol
So you'd have Randle rather than Rodney Hood? :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Killakobe81]

Wow. It's really hard to have a conversation with someone that doesn't really care :lol. All of these excuses for Randle while simply ignoring the stats and what everything has shown us to this point.

SO i make a point it's an excuse but when you do it's a fact :lol
how many games did Randle play his rookie year?
You admit the sample size is small but yet I am supposed to take that as gospel?
So you post in numerous threads that Kobe is a cancer a bad influence on his young team-mates and that Scott is bottom tier coach but none of that matters when comparing to Gordon?
Hard to argue with someone who fails to show consistency in their debates. So is Kobe having a bad effect on Randle or not?

[Killakobe81]

So you'd have Randle rather than Rodney Hood? :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I dont think he is that good. I am laughing because no one would make that pick at the draft last year. Of course Hood and Lavine are playing better they have played in over 100 games Randle has played in 21 ...

Show me the scout expert etc that would have picked Hood or Anderson over Randle.

[DPG21920]

Killa, not hating on you, I actually like discussing basketball so it's nice. Sure it matters when comparing him to Gordon, but it's an excuse when he's not even doing well on the stuff he's supposed to already be good at. The coaching/kobe stuff is a big deal for what he can improve on for the future.

[Raven]

I dont think he is that good. I am laughing because no one would make that pick at the draft last year. Of course Hood and Lavine are playing better they have played in over 100 games Randle has played in 21 ...

Show me the scout expert etc that would have picked Hood or Anderson over Randle.

I can tell you I would have. Not only that, but I actually did draft both in my dinasty fantasy league. Randle was the most polarizing prospect of the draft for legitimate reasons that can easily be verified and were known back then too. So the only reason to draft him was a) you were ignorant of those facts b) you thought he could work around those.

[DPG21920]

Deeps, whats your honest take on Clarkson?

I really like him. He's been a huge surprise. He's showing a lot of good skills and an all around game. He has good athleticism and seems to have his head on right. He could be a solid player on a good team, but I have to watch him more closely.

[DMC]

I wouldn't say Randle is a bust, but I would say he's a bust for LA. Some other team might make an honest woman out of him.

[Killakobe81]

Killa, not hating on you, I actually like discussing basketball so it's nice. Sure it matters when comparing him to Gordon, but it's an excuse when he's not even doing well on the stuff he's supposed to already be good at. The coaching/kobe stuff is a big deal for what he can improve on for the future.

Same here Deeps, but sometimes you can be obtuse but when I do it ..you get frustrated.

Happy Holidays to you Deeps, Amb, EL and the Laker crew.

In the end I am glad he is still learning because we need to tank. I did like the 19 rebounds against the Wiz that is a positive sign. None of the players Raven mentioned have had that type of statistical impact as far as I recall but I dont watch the Magic or Jazz and slowmo barely gets enough run to approach 20 at any stat line ...

Anyway I had a light day cuz I was helping plan the office holiday party my schedule gets much crazier for the next couple weeks until XMAs ... when i have the week off.

[Raven]

Same here Deeps, but sometimes you can be obtuse but when I do it ..you get frustrated.

Happy Holidays to you Deeps, Amb, EL and the Laker crew.

In the end I am glad he is still learning because we need to tank. I did like the 19 rebounds against the Wiz that is a positive sign. None of the players Raven mentioned have had that type of statistical impact as far as I recall but I dont watch the Magic or Jazz and slowmo barely gets enough run to approach 20 at any stat line ...

Anyway I had a light day cuz I was helping plan the office holiday party my schedule gets much crazier for the next couple weeks until XMAs ... when i have the week off.

well you'd actually need to see the players play to see their potential, so it's normal, don't worry.

[Reck]

What a horrible take.
no one knows anything about these kids because Kobe wont let them shot and Byron's system is crappy.

Is it a horrible take because you dont like it? Me thinks so.