The #2 Pick

[Luciferswings]

Okafor is closer to DeMarcus than Al Jefferson

Cousins is extremely athletic, and fast. There were times earlier this season when he was running up and down the court like a guard, when they were still figuring out their offense. Again, he seems a poor comparison for Okafor.

Remember Randle ? The best freshman and the first option on 2nd best team in the country ? The media were focus on his weaknesses and forget what he actually excelled. He is a furious rebounder and finisher under the rim, has decent athletiscm, and closer to Blake Griffin than Derrick Williams, but medias tried to tell you the opposite, hence his stock was dropped a lot despite his talent and performance in NCAA.

Yeh, but Randle hasn't actually proven anything yet. As far as we know, all the criticisms about him were dead on.

[Mirjalovic]

People act like Randle is a bust, but he'll prove it next season tho. Just wait for the beast unleashed.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Luciferswings]

You realize your whole argument is flawed bc the 2010 celtics still ran motion offense + thibs d system and lost to la right? I'm not sure how you are insinuating that the celtics didn't use thibs d scheme in 2010. That is just factually incorrect. Also this whole idea of drafting players with the 2nd overall pick to fit one type of offense is absurd. You take the best player. For all you know, motion offenses will be dead in five years.

The Celtics had a pretty stagnant offense under Rivers actually. It's one of the constant criticisms levelled at Rondo over the years; he's supposedly a great point guard, but he led bad offenses who won with D. The Celtics were definitely using Thibs schemes in 2010 (and 08 and 09 too), and they were awesome. What held them back was they had a weak offense, and their main guys were getting older. Teams looked at the success of Thibs defensive systems and asked "what if we paired that with a good offensive system?" To compare the Celtics offense in 2010 to the elite motion offenses we're seeing from today's contenders is pretty misguided. They're completely distinct.

I spent some time explaining the origin of today's NBA (and the dominance of the motion offense) precisely to explain why it won't be dead. The triangle is basically a bad motion offense, that came into being as an innovation, designed to counteract defences of the time. The reason it's no longer relevant is the same reason the motion offense is, the changes I spent some time outlining.

Nobody is saying you should draft Okafor because of "one type of offense", you draft him because in today's NBA they're really no prototype for him becoming a star. The only grind it out team who was successful this year was Memphis, and Marc Gasol was DPOY, and actually shoots pretty well, and even they can't compete with teams who use a more modern offense. I think Okafor will be a good, if flawed, player. But I don't think he's going to be the 2nd best player in this draft, his limitations are incredibly tough to cover on a contender.

[Sedale Threatt]

Memphis didn't lose because they grind it out, they lost because they have a severe flaw in that they can't shoot. (And it didn't help that Conley was hurt.) Give them even a little bit of shooting and they can definitely beat Golden State. They gave them trouble as it is, even with a crippling shortcoming. It's like how the SSOL Suns lost not because they shot so many 3s, or played an up-tempo offense, but because they were a mediocre defensive team.

Teams with big holes typically fail, not because their playing style is innately flawed.

I generally agree with a lot of what you're saying; the emphasis on ball movement, player spacing and 3-point shooting isn't going away any time soon. That's why Russell, from what little I've seen from him, is so tantalizing. He looks like the exact type of guard who could be absolutely dominant in today's game. But I don't agree with issuing blanket statements about a particular style being obsolete. If you build your team correctly, you can win a lot of different ways.

Take Okafor. (And again, I said in another thread that passing up Russell is going to be really, really tough.) Let's say he does improve a little bit on D, and ends up like a Tiago Splitter-style rim protector who uses good positioning and smarts to overcome a lack of shot blocking. Randle develops into a bull on the glass, and a good position defender. Add some good perimeter D and shooting around that, with some depth, and that could be a really nice team.

I'm not saying that's guaranteed. But good management and coaching should be able to meld an effective, winning unit out of just about any type of team, regardless of style.

[ArC_man]

I think a rookie Marc Gasol and a rookie Okafor are similar defensively. A 24 year old Marc Gasol coming into the league had questions about his mobility to guard the PnR and athleticism to protect the rim and rebound. The difference with Okafor is he's 4-5 years younger. Also he will not be counted on to shoulder the entire offense next year.

[Slava]

How about we actually give the talent a chance to mesh before writing it off prematurely? Most are really over-thinking this Randle and Okafor issues.

[Michael Lucky]

How about we actually give the talent a chance to mesh before writing it off prematurely? Most are really over-thinking this Randle and Okafor issues.

Pretty much this. When you're picking that high you're looking for a franchise cornerstone player. Just go with the best player you think is available.

[TylersLakers]

I think people are just seeing what James Harden and Steph Curry are doing and think we need to replicate that somehow. That's not happening. You choose the most offensively skilled big man that can..

A) Score with his back to the basket
B) Comfortable handling double teams and passing out of the post (name me another player at 19 years old that could do that?)
C) Great finisher
D) Due to his wingspan, and standing reach.. he has more than enough potential to be a good defensive player.

The Lakers better not get cute and mesmerized by some workout by a guard who can show better in those types of workouts. Watch the games, watch this guy's work and you'll see a very talented big man who's only going to get better. No health issues whatsoever either.

[john248]

1) "you want a good PG not mediocre ones.."

Totally agree. Evidence that Russell is a good/great PG? I mean, do you know 100%, no we don't. It's possible, but not a for sure thing. I realize you could make the same case with Okafor, but I do know this about Okafor. He's a great offensive player and at the very minimum, he's going to be a very talented low post player offensively. Players with his type of offensive skill don't come around often and when they do and you have a chance at it, you have to be proactive and jump on it especially with the opportunity we've been given with moving up to #2.

And you don't think Beverly is a good PG? I think he is. Don't think Dragic is a good to great PG? I think he could start with us and be an impact player.

2) "Also Dragic is going to resign with the Heat."

Sure, if they pay him max money. Will they? I don't think he's a maximum calibre player and if the offers are similar between ours and Miami's, we know he's always wanted to play in Los Angeles. If he signs a maximum deal, I don't want him. But for 10-14M, somewhere in that range, I'm game.

I like the enthusiasm, but it's no sure thing that Okafor will live up to the hype either. I say this because I like both prospects. If Okafor turns out to have ok volume scoring on average efficiency with meh defense, sure that's a nice player, but it'd also make him not all that special or at least far from elite. In your world, Okafor is the next Shaq with great chance of signing Dragic while Russell has a good chance to be a bust with no chance of signing Gasol. Too much koolaid.

Personally, I like the idea of pairing Oak with Randle... I think they could pick and roll teams to death and I like Oaks inside presence paired with Randles high post skills. I also think NBA level defense is a learning process for every player. So I don't think I'd let that deter me too much.

I don't mind the pairing either. Both Randle and Okafor would have to be consistent at making mid-range shots though, especially Randle. Okafor would get doubled and make a clean pass to Jefferson to hit a open shot or pass the ball out as the defense was rotating and the guards would get Jefferson the ball to make a basket. Randle can more than fill the same role Jefferson had since he's a far better player. There's going to be a 10 minute stretch where both of their minutes would be staggered anyways.

Basketball is still a big mans game. Don't be fooled by steph curry taking advantage of Kevin durants absence this yr. and who's to say lebron (effectively a big himself) won't win this yr? Okafor has the best low post game of any college freshman ever. I hate when people say he has limited upside it just makes no sense. I get that people are worried about fit w randle, but these cats are young, defense can be taught if you have the physical tools (see Bynum), offense is much harder. Also what about Russell's fit w clarkson? Ppl on this board severely underrate clarksons potential. He has future all star written all over him, but he is ball dominant and that won't mesh w Russell. If Ur gonna hate on Okafor as a bad fit w randle, it cuts both ways w Russell/clarkson. Give me too really talented post scores over two talented ball dominant wings pls. Don't overthink yourself out of this Mitch. Go w the big. Only edge Russell has is that he is 0% chance to bust whereas Okafor has 5-10% chance of being a good, not great player.

But at the end of the day I'd rather take a shot where a guy has 50% chance to be Tim Duncan/25% chance to be 2011 Bynum/25% chance to be al jeff than a guy who has 90% chance to be Damian lillard/10% chance to be steph curry

Offensively, I think Okafor can be like Duncan which is really sweet, but he doesn't project to be the defensive player that Duncan is. By your odds, I'd take 90% Lillard. I don't say this to prop up either draft prospect, but more so because your post is full of jibberish.

People act like all Centers in the league are rim protectors, or that rim protectors are somehow necessary. They aren't. The heat went to 4 straight finals without a rim protector. Kevin Garnett was never a great rim protector. Shaq, etc.

Being a rim protector is VERY overrated.

Who's talking about rim protector? A big, especially a center, is incredibly valuable as a defender. KG was a world class defender. Marc Gasol is great at what he does. And why list Shaq? He was a rim protector since opposing players were scared to run into him.

I don't get the fascination with taking a guard when you have a big with a great NBA ready post game. I think guys are too swayed by today's style of play. Truthfully it's a fad for this moment.

Ever stop to think why teams even went to stretch the floor / perimeter game anyway?

If was because of the lack of bigs who could draw a double team. Bigs became less and less talented as we approached the mid part of the decade.

The last two bigs that were suppose to be dominate were Oden and Bynum. Injuries derailed both of their careers.

But bottom line is that you don't pass on Okafor or Towns for guards you can find in every draft after this one.

The league evolved in such a way that there's a bigger payoff in taking 3's, getting to the line, and not taking long 2's. Even if the league had an extended golden age for centers til now, we'd still be seeing a shift to more 3 point shots and more ball movement which low post scoring, in general, does limit.

[RingsDontLie]

I agree with what others said that Okafor can be the next Tim Duncan. He has that advanced offensive game for a big man already. He's got big hands and a big wingspan. To me, Towns is the one that is not a sure thing. While he may show defensive promise, we don't know if he is going to be as good as Okafor offensively.

I am hoping Minnesota choses Towns for #1, and then the Lakers get Okafor.. Since I think Okafor can play PF, the Lakers should try to get Deandre Jordan. Having Deandre Jordan and Okafor would be a backcourt that would help lead the Lakers back to contention. If the Lakers can keep Davis on a discount, make a big trade for Randle and acquire Butler perhaps...that would be an amazing line up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dilly]

I agree with what others said that Okafor can be the next Tim Duncan. He has that advanced offensive game for a big man already. He's got big hands and a big wingspan. To me, Towns is the one that is not a sure thing. While he may show defensive promise, we don't know if he is going to be as good as Okafor offensively.

I am hoping Minnesota choses Towns for #1, and then the Lakers get Okafor.. Since I think Okafor can play PF, the Lakers should try to get Deandre Jordan. Having Deandre Jordan and Okafor would be a backcourt that would help lead the Lakers back to contention. If the Lakers can keep Davis on a discount, make a big trade for Randle and acquire Butler perhaps...that would be an amazing line up.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's the thing I don't think Oka can play the 4 with his limited lateral movement he'd get abused by quicker guys. It's either 5 or not at all

[Danny Darko]

The thing i keep thinking (besides the people claiming the league isn't for bigs anymore are completely blind to reality):
1. People love Russell because he's a special offensive player who scores at a high rate and facilitates
2. People avoid mentioning how terrible Russell is on D and how his lack of athleticism is never going to assist that facet.
3. Okafor is about the best offensive Center to come out in a decade or more and that means his offense is higher percent per shot than Russell.
4. Okafor is quick but not springy and is long with unusual hand size. The knock is that he's not a rim protecting shot rejecter... not that he doesn't play D (like Russell) He can learn to play D and has the tools. Artest's key D assets was never his amazing speed and jumping, it was his amazing strength and hands.

Lastly talented point guards/combo guards are more common than quality bigs. As much as no one wants to be the team taking Sam Bowie over Jordan... Russell does not have the physical tools to become transcendent which means he'd have to be more the stockton mold, but he's not as ruthless as stockton.

[Mirjalovic]

True.

take Okafor and just run. You probably won't find 19 years old like him in the next decade. Randle + Okafor will be a force for years to come.

Clarkson, Jabari Brown, that's already complement very well, we only need a shooter and defender at 3 spot.

[john248]

Of the 2, I'd side with Okafor only so slightly. I just like the fact that he can pass which goes along with his good post game. If he were a 1 dimensional scorer without the passing ability, I wouldn't even hesitate to go with Russell. Okafor will definitely need a good coach to best use his talent, and I say this not because I think he's raw. Hopefully he'll be coached in a way where he'll go to his post moves quickly rather than going with ball stopping offense of..."ok, we're going to just dump it to you and just slowly back in." He'd also need to be coached up defensively to better understand positioning and ideally learn to be a vocal leader there to get guys in front of him in position to defend. Again, it's the passing that I'm excited about. This means he can pass out of the double to open perimeter players, and most importantly, also be used as a decoy or feint where the real action is elsewhere. I believe this to be an extra advantage to the offense instead of the "pound it out back to the basket post" that people seen to be focusing on.

Okafor absolutely must work on his defensive positioning though. I could careless if he blocks all of 0, 1, or 2 shots per game. He's so damn lazy on this end, and it's slow lateral movement actually a huge liability. I mean Duke sat him after he got in foul trouble when Kaminsky was owning him only to unravel Wisconsin. To Okafor's credit though, he got some nice baskets in the 4th. But back on his defensive play, he won't be a shot blocker in the paint, so he's going to have to make up for it in other ways which just may never come. I see the opposing team just PnR-ing all day long and just completely exposing him. If he can't protect the rim or guard PnRs, he's simply just a liability out there where he may make some improvement but not enough. There's also the criticism out there that he wasn't dominating or effective even against guys his size.

There's definitely a lot of risk when it comes to picking Okafor, and it may in the long run take up more salary to build a competitive team around him. I'm definitely not optimistic about his defense improving to a respectable level, and we can add his FT shooting too (though if he just shoots like he did in high school at 57%, it'd be fine). Offensively, I don't see much of an issue pairing him with Randle. And hell, Randle is a good defensive rebounder that'll clean up the stuff that Okafor will miss. But Randle isn't a good defender himself, and he pretty much needs to be in this pairing. There aren't exactly a lot of awesome defensive 4's either, and the ones that are....well, they're expensive.

I wouldn't be upset if either of these guys were picked. I like Russell's game a lot, and he is a far safer pick. He's got all the skills and qualities you want: ball handling, passing, good court vision, not selfish, good shooter, scores, great feel for the game, controls tempo. Sucks ass on defense, but I can get past that for the most part since I think his offense is special enough. Played unselfish basketball in high school since that was the style that they played. Showed the same willingness to pass at OSU. I don't mind so much that he's not as athletic as you want him to be. His handles are good enough for him to be fast on the court which matters more. It's why guys like Curry, Harden, and Ginobili are so effective because they have handles and can shoot. Even if he turns out a notch below like Lillard, I would be plenty happy with that. No concerns about him play alongside Clarkson either. It'd be nice to have 2 bigger guards on the court who can both initiate the offense which is also valuable. Russell can shoot and play off ball should it come to that. Clarkson needs to improve on his shooting for it to really work. Clarkson was just too inconsistent and way too streaky. Hopefully he continues to develop and gets more consistent.

Of course if the Wolves select Okafor, that'd be a blessing. KAT just may be the best player in this draft in the long run. A big who's very athletic, projects to be a good defender, has a jump shot, and can finish. He's like a much better Dwight.

[PKABOOICU]

1) "you want a good PG not mediocre ones.."

Totally agree. Evidence that Russell is a good/great PG? I mean, do you know 100%, no we don't. It's possible, but not a for sure thing. I realize you could make the same case with Okafor, but I do know this about Okafor. He's a great offensive player and at the very minimum, he's going to be a very talented low post player offensively. Players with his type of offensive skill don't come around often and when they do and you have a chance at it, you have to be proactive and jump on it especially with the opportunity we've been given with moving up to #2.

And you don't think Beverly is a good PG? I think he is. Don't think Dragic is a good to great PG? I think he could start with us and be an impact player.

2) "Also Dragic is going to resign with the Heat."

Sure, if they pay him max money. Will they? I don't think he's a maximum calibre player and if the offers are similar between ours and Miami's, we know he's always wanted to play in Los Angeles. If he signs a maximum deal, I don't want him. But for 10-14M, somewhere in that range, I'm game.

I like the enthusiasm, but it's no sure thing that Okafor will live up to the hype either. I say this because I like both prospects. If Okafor turns out to have ok volume scoring on average efficiency with meh defense, sure that's a nice player, but it'd also make him not all that special or at least far from elite. In your world, Okafor is the next Shaq with great chance of signing Dragic while Russell has a good chance to be a bust with no chance of signing Gasol. Too much koolaid.

Personally, I like the idea of pairing Oak with Randle... I think they could pick and roll teams to death and I like Oaks inside presence paired with Randles high post skills. I also think NBA level defense is a learning process for every player. So I don't think I'd let that deter me too much.

I don't mind the pairing either. Both Randle and Okafor would have to be consistent at making mid-range shots though, especially Randle. Okafor would get doubled and make a clean pass to Jefferson to hit a open shot or pass the ball out as the defense was rotating and the guards would get Jefferson the ball to make a basket. Randle can more than fill the same role Jefferson had since he's a far better player. There's going to be a 10 minute stretch where both of their minutes would be staggered anyways.

Basketball is still a big mans game. Don't be fooled by steph curry taking advantage of Kevin durants absence this yr. and who's to say lebron (effectively a big himself) won't win this yr? Okafor has the best low post game of any college freshman ever. I hate when people say he has limited upside it just makes no sense. I get that people are worried about fit w randle, but these cats are young, defense can be taught if you have the physical tools (see Bynum), offense is much harder. Also what about Russell's fit w clarkson? Ppl on this board severely underrate clarksons potential. He has future all star written all over him, but he is ball dominant and that won't mesh w Russell. If Ur gonna hate on Okafor as a bad fit w randle, it cuts both ways w Russell/clarkson. Give me too really talented post scores over two talented ball dominant wings pls. Don't overthink yourself out of this Mitch. Go w the big. Only edge Russell has is that he is 0% chance to bust whereas Okafor has 5-10% chance of being a good, not great player.

But at the end of the day I'd rather take a shot where a guy has 50% chance to be Tim Duncan/25% chance to be 2011 Bynum/25% chance to be al jeff than a guy who has 90% chance to be Damian lillard/10% chance to be steph curry

Offensively, I think Okafor can be like Duncan which is really sweet, but he doesn't project to be the defensive player that Duncan is. By your odds, I'd take 90% Lillard. I don't say this to prop up either draft prospect, but more so because your post is full of jibberish.

People act like all Centers in the league are rim protectors, or that rim protectors are somehow necessary. They aren't. The heat went to 4 straight finals without a rim protector. Kevin Garnett was never a great rim protector. Shaq, etc.

Being a rim protector is VERY overrated.

Who's talking about rim protector? A big, especially a center, is incredibly valuable as a defender. KG was a world class defender. Marc Gasol is great at what he does. And why list Shaq? He was a rim protector since opposing players were scared to run into him.

I don't get the fascination with taking a guard when you have a big with a great NBA ready post game. I think guys are too swayed by today's style of play. Truthfully it's a fad for this moment.

Ever stop to think why teams even went to stretch the floor / perimeter game anyway?

If was because of the lack of bigs who could draw a double team. Bigs became less and less talented as we approached the mid part of the decade.

The last two bigs that were suppose to be dominate were Oden and Bynum. Injuries derailed both of their careers.

But bottom line is that you don't pass on Okafor or Towns for guards you can find in every draft after this one.

The league evolved in such a way that there's a bigger payoff in taking 3's, getting to the line, and not taking long 2's. Even if the league had an extended golden age for centers til now, we'd still be seeing a shift to more 3 point shots and more ball movement which low post scoring, in general, does limit.

okafor can be like duncan?! how???

okafor is exactly like al jefferson....good post moves, good offense, decent passing, commands double teams, poor defense....
duncan is the greatest power forward of all time. Okafor wont sniff his jock after its all said and done.

[Wavy Q]

did you really just quote that entire post and find the smallest thing to bold, to you

not to mention he literally said in that post, Offensively, he didn't say a thing about defense.

[john248]

The thing i keep thinking (besides the people claiming the league isn't for bigs anymore are completely blind to reality):
1. People love Russell because he's a special offensive player who scores at a high rate and facilitates
2. People avoid mentioning how terrible Russell is on D and how his lack of athleticism is never going to assist that facet.
3. Okafor is about the best offensive Center to come out in a decade or more and that means his offense is higher percent per shot than Russell.
4. Okafor is quick but not springy and is long with unusual hand size. The knock is that he's not a rim protecting shot rejecter... not that he doesn't play D (like Russell) He can learn to play D and has the tools. Artest's key D assets was never his amazing speed and jumping, it was his amazing strength and hands.

Lastly talented point guards/combo guards are more common than quality bigs. As much as no one wants to be the team taking Sam Bowie over Jordan... Russell does not have the physical tools to become transcendent which means he'd have to be more the stockton mold, but he's not as ruthless as stockton.

I've sided with Okafor too, but you act as though Okafor can reliably get past his defensive deficiencies. He won't be that rim protector since he lacks explosiveness and awareness. The fact of the matter is that he was a liability on defense. He constantly had to go under screens which opens things up for the opposition. While he can improve his hustle and will gain more experience and thus have better awareness, that doesn't mean he'll be as good as Artest was. I'm not saying that he won't get better, but it is absolutely realistic to think that he'll be a liability defensively. As it is, he's not a rim protector and cannot guard screens and recover. So...he'll have to play smarter and better position himself which simply may not happen. With both players, you're basically hoping that their offense will be so great that it outweighs their crap defense. The problem here is that Okafor's defense is a greater positional disadvantage.

You're talking about transcendent players. But how many truly transcendent back to the basket post players have their been? The number is quite small...we're talking literally a handful of guys in the history of the league. I don't expect Okafor to be a transcendent player. His defense is just too poor for that for the position he plays, and he's not going to be Shaq or Kareem offensively. I'm all for Okafor too...even if I think the margin between the 2 being discussed is really small. I take him as an extra option on offense given his passing abilities to go along with his post play and find an all-star level type of player for the perimeter to go along with some very good perimeter defenders who are willing to go over screens and do it well. Maybe target and go hard after Jimmy Butler.

As for Russell, he doesn't need supreme athletic ability. He's athletic enough. He also has great handles and was a great shooter in college with good vision as a bonus. His handles will be what will make him fast. Without it, he'd be an offensive version of any athletic guy with a jump shot without handles like Danny Green. It's what makes Harden and Ginobili as good as they are.

[Luciferswings]

It's not that the league "isn't for bigs anymore". Bigs are fantastically valuable... provided they have a certain skill set. The problem with Okafor is he doesn't really fit this skill set, and looking around the NBA for a prototype all I can come up with is Al Jefferson. Other comparisons I've seen (Duncan, Gasol, etc) don't really work, because of Okafor's defensive limitations, lack of shooting, and general lack of athleticism.

Now, of course, you can succeed to some degree with a team like Memphis. It's not ideal, but it can be done. There are different ways to build a team. But each way of building a team needs to recognise what will be successful in the current NBA environment. Maybe the Grizzlies are so good on D and grind it out ball that they could win a title if they just had really good shooting on their team, without compromising their defense, though they'll always be limited playing pace and space with the guys they have in the middle. That's kind of moot here, because I don't think you can really compare Okafor to Marc Gasol. Okafor's weakness is D, and Gasol's strength is D. Gasol can also shoot pretty well, in addition to being an unbelievably high IQ player. Okafor hasn't shown he can shoot at all. I would liken it to the situation in OKC. Kanter can score inside with ease, but he's a huge defensive liability. They can still make it work, because a) OKC is going to only put him on the court when he's shackled to Ibaka, whose defensive presence will cancel out his mistakes, and b) they're so talented at other positions. It's less obvious it'll work with Randle.

I just think Russell is the guy to go with. At the very least, you can say you're taking Russell and then bleed Philly for assets. Try and get your pick back in exchange for moving down 1. Philly can't take Okafor, they want Russell, so they'd be pretty boned if you did that.

[Showtime:Part2]

You realize your whole argument is flawed bc the 2010 celtics still ran motion offense + thibs d system and lost to la right? I'm not sure how you are insinuating that the celtics didn't use thibs d scheme in 2010. That is just factually incorrect. Also this whole idea of drafting players with the 2nd overall pick to fit one type of offense is absurd. You take the best player. For all you know, motion offenses will be dead in five years.

The Celtics had a pretty stagnant offense under Rivers actually. It's one of the constant criticisms levelled at Rondo over the years; he's supposedly a great point guard, but he led bad offenses who won with D. The Celtics were definitely using Thibs schemes in 2010 (and 08 and 09 too), and they were awesome. What held them back was they had a weak offense, and their main guys were getting older. Teams looked at the success of Thibs defensive systems and asked "what if we paired that with a good offensive system?" To compare the Celtics offense in 2010 to the elite motion offenses we're seeing from today's contenders is pretty misguided. They're completely distinct

I spent some time explaining the origin of today's NBA (and the dominance of the motion offense) precisely to explain why it won't be dead. The triangle is basically a bad motion offense, that came into being as an innovation, designed to counteract defences of the time. The reason it's no longer relevant is the same reason the motion offense is, the changes I spent some time outlining.

Nobody is saying you should draft Okafor because of "one type of offense", you draft him because in today's NBA they're really no prototype for him becoming a star. The only grind it out team who was successful this year was Memphis, and Marc Gasol was DPOY, and actually shoots pretty well, and even they can't compete with teams who use a more modern offense. I think Okafor will be a good, if flawed, player. But I don't think he's going to be the 2nd best player in this draft, his limitations are incredibly tough to cover on a contender.

You realize kg missed the first quarter if the season, they started Perkins at C and were still 15th in ortg and 4th in fg%. The celtics used a motion offense in 30% of sets (http://coachingbetterbball.blogspot.in/ ... fense.html) similar, to what the rockets do now (http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=243412).

Also, that is exactly what you are saying that you shouldn't draft Okafor bc u don't think he's a good fit for a motion offense. Your basic assumption that he's a bad fit in this offense is incorrect. What do you think duke ran, the friggin triangle? Coach k runs a motion offense (https://www.breakthroughbasketball.com/ ... fense.html). For Christ sake he put up great stats and won a ring as a freshman as the focal point of a motion offense. What else do you want? What do you mean there is no prototype? Does every income player have to exactly resemble a prior player? He is leagues better than al jeff don't give me that bull

[john248]

okafor can be like duncan?! how???

okafor is exactly like al jefferson....good post moves, good offense, decent passing, commands double teams, poor defense....
duncan is the greatest power forward of all time. Okafor wont sniff his jock after its all said and done.

I'm only talking on the offensive side of the ball. I've said in that quote you replied that it wasn't a comparison to his defense, so why only focuse on the 1st half of the sentence. I do feel Okafor an be like Al Jefferson with much better passing. I realize that Al tried to shed his black hole reputation in his last couple years with the Jazz and with the Bobcats, but he was also pouting about touches this year. I don't think Okafor will be as much of a black hole like the Albatross.