ImageImageImageImageImage

Is Howard really a first or second option offensively?

Moderators: TyCobb, Kilroy, crazyeights, Danny Darko, Slava

drekwins
Junior
Posts: 338
And1: 25
Joined: Jun 05, 2008

Is Howard really a first or second option offensively? 

Post#1 » by drekwins » Sat Dec 15, 2012 4:01 am

Listen, to start off, I love quality big men. I grew up in the era of Olajuwon, Ewing, Mourning, Dikembe, Sabonis, Shaq, Yao, Vlade, Smits, etc. These guys were all winners and were extremely talented. Today, quality big's like these guys rarely exist anymore. However, as you are well aware, you guys seem to have gotten your hands on one who would have fit right in with this group (although a bit undersized at 6-10). My big question is, why does everyone think that the offense will run fluidly through Howard as a first or second option?

Now, I respect the guys physical attributes. He's a physical beast and that shows in his gaudy defensive numbers. There's no one else that I'd rather start a team with defensively (which makes the recent defensive trend that much more head scratching). However, the guy is no Olajuwon or Shaq. I don't think anyone expects that level of dominance but he's really never even been close. To win a championship, you need dominance, not just above average.

While I'm as frustrated with D'Antoni's offense as the next guy, I don't think he's wrong to think that the offense should run with the ball primarily in Nash's and Kobe's hands. The thing about Nash is that the ball may start in his hands, but it rarely ends up there by the end of the shot clock. He puts his big guys to plenty of use.

Look at Amare's dominance with him. The guy got between 23 and 26 points a game on 54 to 59 percent shooting. He ended up with 15-16 shots per game and 8-9 FTA's. What I am trying to say is that Howard will get his touches and will have a chance to thrive. In fact, those usage numbers for Amar'e are more than Howard's ever had in his career: 20-23PPG, 57-60% FG%, 10-13 shots per game and 10-11 FT's per game.

Now, I propose to you this question: Do you think Howard is dominant in the post? When I say dominant, I mean, can you throw it down there every time and abuse the other team? I don't think you can. He looks good in spurts but has nowhere near the post game of Ewing and Olajuwon and no where near the brute strength of Shaq. He's simply a level below those guys in my opinion. Not to mention, he has no play making ability for other teammates and can be taken out of the game with FT's.

Therefore, I think everyone has to back off Howard offensively as a dominant big man that we have to give touches in the post to. While we surely do, the more important thing is to make sure Nash has the ball in his hands every possession. Not only does he shoot over 50% (overall), 40% (threes) and 90% (FTs) but the guy is an unbelievable play maker for his teammates. Throw the idea that big guys are more efficient than PGs out the window when it comes to Nash. Nash had a True Shooting Percentage of 63% last year while Howard's was 56%. Give him the reins and watch how everyone fits in. He's simply a revolutionary player and everyone will get their touches.

I understand how physically great Howard is and how he seems to be the next great Laker big man but he's not a number 2 option on this team. He's an extremely important player for the Lakers defensively and will still have a huge offensive role. We just need to get over this isolation play of Kobe and isolation of Dwight in the post. It's time to lower offensive expectations for Howard and accept that he's option number 3 and will be a damn good one at that. But this is Nash's offense now with the ultimate finishers (Kobe, Dwights) around him. That's how it's gotta be.
User avatar
JustAwesome
Analyst
Posts: 3,712
And1: 77
Joined: Nov 15, 2009
Contact:

Re: Is Howard really a first or second option offensively? 

Post#2 » by JustAwesome » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:08 am

I'd rather see how be an active player on offense as opposed to simply being fed in the post. I think he's much more dangerous that way.
drekwins
Junior
Posts: 338
And1: 25
Joined: Jun 05, 2008

Re: Is Howard really a first or second option offensively? 

Post#3 » by drekwins » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:24 am

My thoughts exactly.
User avatar
Mr 24 eight
Sophomore
Posts: 157
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 12, 2010

Re: Is Howard really a first or second option offensively? 

Post#4 » by Mr 24 eight » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:35 am

No, never has been. Bynum is a much better player offensively.

In theory he should be better for this team because he doesn't need to dominate the ball to be successful. Not so for Andrew. However, Howard has not been as effective away from the ball, putting back offensive rebounds, making hustle plays, etc. as was expected of him. Plenty of time to get on track but I don't see 48 minutes of "want to" from Dwight.
Gig 'em Lakers
User avatar
Dr Aki
RealGM
Posts: 18,815
And1: 2,102
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
   

Re: Is Howard really a first or second option offensively? 

Post#5 » by Dr Aki » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:46 am

give him time to get that explosiveness back.

easy buckets aren't overrated. and a healthy dwight was head and shoulders more efficient than bynum, who was never as consistent
Image

Return to Los Angeles Lakers


Users browsing this forum: No registered users