The #2 Pick

[Luciferswings]

I'm sorry, your counter argument to the claim that the Celtics had a stagnant offensive scheme is that they were 15th in ortg? I mean, that's the point, they're 15th. Perkins was their full time starter. That's another point in favour of my argument, not against it. The Celtics were not a good offensive team back then. Today teams like the Warriors are using the newer and better defensive schemes, but they're combining that with a high octane motion offense. They're winning with both. That's what's so deadly about it. The Spurs and Mavs did this too. The reality is that a lot has changed since 2010. The change started in 2005, took the next step in 2008, and by 2011 it had fully taken hold of the NBA and kept expanding. What worked in 2010 won't be nearly as effective today, which basically means it won't work.

[Showtime:Part2]

I'm done w you. You are cherry picking parts of my post that suit your agenda instead of replying to the whole thing. That's just dishonest debate

[eckoner]

bullet to my head i take russell due to superstar potential..his game, flashiness, and demeanor go hand in hand with LA.

okafor may be an allstar for a few years, but probably not a dominant superstar


ideally, I'd love to sign deandre jordan or marc gasol and draft russell, and pair him up with jordan clarkson, then try to sign demarre carroll

Me agree's!

[Luciferswings]

I'm done w you. You are cherry picking parts of my post that suit your agenda instead of replying to the whole thing. That's just dishonest debate

The only other thing you mentioned was FG%, and that doesn't really have anything to do with how good an offense is. Oh, and KG being hurt. But how does that change things? I mean, they were 18th in offense the following year with a pretty healthy team (who was healthy enough to be #2 in defense), it doesn't seem like 2010 was some anomalous year, they were generally a middling offensive team. I mean, I guess you could argue they were in the top 10 in offense in 2008 and 2009 (though not by much), but how does that help the argument being made? The Lakers didn't beat the 2008 Celtics, or a healthy 2009 Celtics, so the argument that the triangle prevailed over a combination of Thibs new defensive schemes, while it was shackled to a strong offense, doesn't work, does it?

[Showtime:Part2]

I'm done w you. You are cherry picking parts of my post that suit your agenda instead of replying to the whole thing. That's just dishonest debate

The only other thing you mentioned was FG%, and that doesn't really have anything to do with how good an offense is. Oh, and KG being hurt. But how does that change things? I mean, they were 18th in offense the following year with a pretty healthy team (who was healthy enough to be #2 in defense), it doesn't seem like 2010 was some anomalous year, they were generally a middling offensive team.

Let's see...

1) you ignored the whole thing about Okafor being the centerpiece of a motion offense and winning a title and putting up great stats while doing it.

2) you twisted the Perkins argument. Clearly they played 4on 5 on offense and still were middle of the pack w kg also being out (so more like 3.5v5 for a quarter of the season).

3) efficiency doesn't matter now?

4) even if you ignore my first point, why do we have to draft someone that will fit a motion offense on day 1 (again ignoring how successful oak was in a motion offense) the way the 28 yr old vets you compared him to do?

[Luciferswings]

1) College ball is a totally different game, with different rules, and inferior players, it's a terrible comparison with the NBA.
2) It's not "twisting" anything. Your argument is they would have been a good offense if not for Perkins playing. But Perkins was playing. Which is the point.
3) FG% is not irrelevant, though it's less relevant than TS%, but FG% by itself isn't an indicator of a team offense. Offensive rating is a good indicator, which you seem to know because you used it. And it tells us that the Celtics were in the middle of the pack offensively.
4) I don't even understand the question. The issue is not whether he will fit into a motion offense on day 1, it's whether he can fit into today's offensive and defensive schemes at all, given he can't shoot, isn't fast or athletic, and is not a good defensive player.

This isn't an anti-Lakers post, Okafor isn't a Laker yet. I hope you draft Russell. He is the guy you want, he'll be a star.

[Mirjalovic]

i still take Okafor.

[john248]

Why are you guys talking about the Celtics or 2009/10? No one cares.

[BullsLakersFan]

I love D'Angelo's game, it was really fun to watch him with OSU, but I take Okafor if Wolves pick Towns. No second thoughts.

[Gus McCrae]

1) College ball is a totally different game, with different rules, and inferior players, it's a terrible comparison with the NBA.
2) It's not "twisting" anything. Your argument is they would have been a good offense if not for Perkins playing. But Perkins was playing. Which is the point.
3) FG% is not irrelevant, though it's less relevant than TS%, but FG% by itself isn't an indicator of a team offense. Offensive rating is a good indicator, which you seem to know because you used it. And it tells us that the Celtics were in the middle of the pack offensively.
4) I don't even understand the question. The issue is not whether he will fit into a motion offense on day 1, it's whether he can fit into today's offensive and defensive schemes at all, given he can't shoot, isn't fast or athletic, and is not a good defensive player.

This isn't an anti-Lakers post, Okafor isn't a Laker yet. I hope you draft Russell. He is the guy you want, he'll be a star.

You make it seem as if okafor should go undrafted

[DEEP3CL]

I knew the minute we got a pick where you had to use smarts and IQ to determine the Lakers future....would be the same minute guys would show what they'd really like to see. And that was us just being a team that mirrors every other team without a post presence.

There is no way in hell you leave a talented big on the board for a guard that you can get over and over and over again.

People are ragging on Okafor doesn't play defense. ...you can learn defensive principles, you can't learn offensive skills.

Ask Dwight Howard how is that working out for him?

[alaskan34pac34]

Come on people stop over thinking it. We lucked out got a great and easiest pick in the draft. We pick Okafor or Towns whoever Minnesota doesn't take.

[NBAWestFan]

I think the "Lakers" will not take a 6' 5" potential Super Star or a 6' 11" Super Superstar who
has the potential to get more rebounds and block shots.

You got to get rebounds. Russel could average a lot of points but over there
careers Okafor has a chance to get more rebounds, block more shots
and free up your three point shooters and wings for open shots with double teams.

You will have to double team Okafor when he is hot.

Okafor needs to get in better shape and definitely will become better in all phases of the game.

My concern if you take Okafor, then is Randle a good fit at his height. I was thinking he is a bit short.
I would want a 7 footer on the other side of the hoop when Okafor shoots the ball to rebound as opposed
to a 6-9.

Randle and Towns seem like a good fit if Randle shoots more.
but if Okafor shoots more eventually the Lakers will have to get some rebounders taller than 6 -9

Play Okafor and Randle a year and then decide. Don't jump the gun.

[Ericb5]

As a Sixers fan coming to your board(and the Twolves board) I find it very interesting to read all of the fan debates about who to take. This is the best time of the year on these boards imo.

Last year, the Sixers had the 3rd pick as well, and I enjoyed the same thing with reading the Bucks and Cavs boards.

On the Sixers board I am definitely in the minority of fans that would take Okafor even for us if we had the number 2 pick even though he is a poor fit, and Russell is a great fit for us. The fact that the lottery balls have saved us from having to make that choice is a good thing simply because it probably would be disruptive to our team. Russell falling to us is perfect for us, and Okafor falling to you is perfect for you.

I firmly agree with the people who say that you simply do not pass up big men of this caliber.

When prospects are "on the radar" of basketball people for a long time their deficiencies tend to get highlighted and their strengths taken for granted. Okafor has some tremendous strengths and some obvious weaknesses, but he still projects as an all star, and potentially a superstar big man.

You can build your entire offense around him, and on top of that he is a great kid. He is competitive, skilled, and smart.

He will never be a rim protector, but was Moses Malone ever a rim protector? He can at least be an average defender in the paint(if not better), but his offensive skills are so elite that you just live with it.

I think that he is absolutely in the class of Demarcus Cousins. He is a hair less athletic than Demarcus, but he is a LOT less crazy.

[RingsDontLie]

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.

It's why I would pair Okafor with a defensive big like Deandre Jordan. David Robinson and Tim Duncan played well together.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SDChargers#1]

I have read reports that Okafor has dropped 12 Lbs of fat in the offseason and has been working on his defense. I have said it before and I will say it again. THERE IS NO CONTEST. I would take Okafor over Russell 100 times out of 100. Okafor has a chance to be a HoF caliber player, Russell does not.

[EArl]

You always take a big over a guard. Especially nowadays where guards are a dime a dozen.

If Embiid was healthy last year, I'm positive he would have gone first.

[PKABOOICU]

I'm very puzzled...i voted russell, but okafor is just so intriguing because he's young, already has a great offensive game, and Defense can always be worked on....im pretty sure the lakers won't pass on him...its too big a risk

[Danny Darko]

So basically the defensive player of the year was criticized for lack of defense pre-draft. I don't buy that criticism of Okafor as being permanent and when I see video of his games I see much better switching, quickness, and defensive iQ than he's given credit for. Rim protector is a term they keep using to trash him, but no one says "Marc Gasol is a great rim protector". Marc's vertical is not impressive but that does not matter half as much as position, strength, and iq.

Draymond Green scouting

[Levity]

is there any reason to believe Okafor cant transition into a good positional defender, ala HIbbert or Asik? All those names listed are decently slow footed and lack laterall quickness, but the latter two are still effective defensively due to size and length. Okafor has a great bball IQ, but his defense suffered in college due to his lack of effort on that end. that wont be an issue in the NBA, because if he doesnt put the effort in, he'll easily lose minutes.

So is it really hard to believe he will be able to be a good positional defender with his frame and length?