RealGM

So in the interest of full disclosure, I admit that I'm a big Russell supporter and I'm not very high on JC. With that in mind, it's not looking good for these two being able to coexist. Clarkson and Russell were absolutely terrible when paired together this season. When those two were on the floor together, the Lakers were 19.1 points per 100 possessions worse than their opponent. That's spectacularly awful. They played together for over 700 minutes too, so it's not like there's not a significant sample size. But why were these two so bad together? Well, all you have to do is look at what they did to each other's individual numbers:

RUSSELL - STATISTICS

JC On

OFFRTG 102.6
DEFRTG 121.3
NETRTG -18.6
AST% 21.2
AST/TO 1.44
AST RATIO 18.3
EFG% 42.2
TS% 47.3
USG% 26.0

JC Off

OFFRTG 106.1
DEFRTG 108.1
NETRTG -2.1
AST% 30.8
AST/TO 1.90
AST RATIO 23.0
EFG% 52.1
TS% 54.7
USG% 27.2

CLARKSON - STATISTICS

D'Lo On

OFFRTG 102.6
DEFRTG 121.3
NETRTG -18.6
AST% 15.9
AST/TO 2.03
AST RATIO 18.6
EFG% 45.5
TS% 47.8
USG% 19.4

D'Lo Off

OFFRTG 103.6
DEFRTG 107.6
NETRTG -4.0
AST% 13.5
AST/TO 1.07
AST RATIO 12.3
EFG% 51.2
TS% 54.1
USG% 25.0

Both guys really hurt the other's numbers. In some ways, this reminds me of the Monta Ellis/ Steph Curry situation. In that scenario, you had two talented players whose styles just did not mesh. No, I'm not saying D'Lo is the next Steph, I'm just pointing out the similarity of the situation where you have two guys whose styles are an awful fit.

Edited to make the format a little easier to follow

That's why Clarkson is the 6th man

They should only play very limited mins together

Clarkson and Russell, like Fultz and Russell, are, and have always been, a bad fit.

One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

Odds are we're getting the 3rd pick if we keep it, so we don't have to worry about Fultz/Ball and their mesh with Russell anymore.

It's Josh Jackson all the way. And I'm perfectly content with that.
I always thought in the back of my mind we'd have to choose between Russell and Ball/Fultz somewhere along the road. Not with Jackson.

Russell/Jackson can be the Lakers starting backourt for the next 10 yrs.

AcecardZ wrote:One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

Like Marbury and Francis, huh?

Fultz is not a true PG

AcecardZ wrote:One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

How has trading ill-fitting young guys at logjammed positions been for Philadelphia?

When the league KNOWS you need to get rid of a guy, you lose considerable leverage. If you draft Fultz and trade Russell, you're more than likely looking at a return similar to what Philadelphia got for Noel.

But I get it though. You think Fultz is too good to pass up.

ALL HAIL wrote:

AcecardZ wrote:One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

How has trading ill-fitting young guys at logjammed positions been for Philadelphia?

When the league KNOWS you need to get rid of a guy, you lose considerable leverage. If you draft Fultz and trade Russell, you're more than likely looking at a return similar to what Philadelphia got for Noel.

But I get it though. You think Fultz is too good to pass up.

The thing is Noel is not the player that Russell is, and he was on his last year before they have to pay him big money. Also, you can't say Russell and Clarkson don't fit, therefore Fultz and Russell won't fit. Fultz is 10 times better than Clarkson, and he is not a ball hog on top of that. I don't know if they will fit or not, but you can't know either.

Three realities we have found in last 6 games... First, Russell plays better at SG... Second, Nance plays better starting... Third, FO is a damn mess...

Princeinrevolt wrote:

ALL HAIL wrote:

AcecardZ wrote:One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

How has trading ill-fitting young guys at logjammed positions been for Philadelphia?

When the league KNOWS you need to get rid of a guy, you lose considerable leverage. If you draft Fultz and trade Russell, you're more than likely looking at a return similar to what Philadelphia got for Noel.

But I get it though. You think Fultz is too good to pass up.

The thing is Noel is not the player that Russell is, and he was on his last year before they have to pay him big money. Also, you can't say Russell and Clarkson don't fit, therefore Fultz and Russell won't fit. Fultz is 10 times better than Clarkson, and he is not a ball hog on top of that. I don't know if they will fit or not, but you can't know either.

Yeah, I dont see the Noel trade as a warning sign for Russell, I see it as a warning sign for Randle. If the front office sees signing George and someone like Cousins as part of the '18 offseason plan, they need to trade Randle asap. Waiting til the trading deadline could yield similarly poor returns.

Princeinrevolt wrote:

ALL HAIL wrote:

AcecardZ wrote:One problem I'd love to have? Worrying about whether Fultz and Russell can play together.

I don't agree with the assessment Fultz and Russell will be a bad fit. If we're lucky enough to get Fultz I'll happily trade Russell or trade Clarkson and move Russell to the bench if the two don't Compliment one another.


Russell has shown he can play the two guard and with a true PG like Fultz getting him the ball he should be a very productive offensive player.

How has trading ill-fitting young guys at logjammed positions been for Philadelphia?

When the league KNOWS you need to get rid of a guy, you lose considerable leverage. If you draft Fultz and trade Russell, you're more than likely looking at a return similar to what Philadelphia got for Noel.

But I get it though. You think Fultz is too good to pass up.

The thing is Noel is not the player that Russell is, and he was on his last year before they have to pay him big money. Also, you can't say Russell and Clarkson don't fit, therefore Fultz and Russell won't fit. Fultz is 10 times better than Clarkson, and he is not a ball hog on top of that. I don't know if they will fit or not, but you can't know either.

You're right about the Noel example, but when it comes to the Fultz-Russell fit, you're wrong.

I won't argue the point extensively because it'd be a waste of time, but I know these things well dude. Fit and chemistry when it comes to roster construction is my thing, and it has been for decades now.

I argued tooth and nail with everyone on this board about the potential Clarkson-Russell fit after Russell was drafted and only after most posters around here have seen them play together for two years now, are they finally seeing what I've known all along.

In a nutshell, the problem with a Fultz-Russell backcourt is defensive and a lack of pecking order. It won't work. I understand that you can't see it (yet), but I do. That backcourt, on this current team, as presently constructed, will only end with lots and lots of more losing.

Starting Nwaba next year is more conducive to winning than starting Fultz, even though Fultz is a thousand times better as an overall player. You can't just throw two young combo guys together who both can shoot on or off ball and hope it works. There needs to be a clear delineation of who's better in order for it to work, and there needs to be defensive chemistry. Fultz and Russell check neither of those boxes, so it won't work. You'll just have to see for yourself the way everyone here has has had to see that Russell and Clarkson don't work, and the same way the world had to see that Marbury and Francis couldn't work either.

I would like to see those stats since the all star break, because from what I'm seeing I don't think they are playing that bad.

I'm hoping for Lonzo but won't be unhappy if we get Josh J .... though I think that would mean traveling music for Randle.

But having Randle and Clarkson to trade would pique some serious interest I think

Princeinrevolt wrote:I would like to see those stats since the all star break, because from what I'm seeing I don't think they are playing that bad.

Well, post all star break you're starting to get into the sample size argument, but the story is pretty much the same. Here is where they sit with production after the all star break:

Clarkson stats:

D'Lo Off

Asst% 19.4
Asst/TO 1.21
EFG% 55.9
TS% 59.2
USG% 30.7

D'Lo On

Asst% 16.4
Asst/TO 2.21
EFG% 42.3
TS% 45.1
USG% 19.9

D'Lo Stats:

Clarkson Off

Asst% 29.3
Asst/TO 1.77
EFG% 54.3
TS% 56.4
USG% 28.2

Clarkson On

Asst% 21.5
Asst/TO 1.67
EFG% 48.0
TS% 52.4
USG% 25.0

It's a balance thing, prince. You need the two guards who get the most minutes to balance out each other, especially on defense.

Curry and Thompson wouldn't work either if it weren't for Thompson's above average defense, but with his defense, it works just fine.

Russell needs to play next to someone who has a strong defensive pedigree. That ain't Fultz, it wasn't Lou Williams, and it damn sure ain't Clarkson.

Nwaba, Brewer, and Ennis fit the archetype of what's needed much better than Clarkson and Fultz.

ALL HAIL wrote:It's a balance thing, prince. You need the two guards who get the most minutes to balance out each other, especially on defense.

Curry and Thompson wouldn't work either if it weren't for Thompson's above average defense, but with his defense, it works just fine.

Russell needs to play next to someone who has a strong defensive pedigree. That ain't Fultz, it wasn't Lou Williams, sand it damn sure ain't Clarkson.

Nwaba, Brewer, and Ennis fit the archetype of what's needed much better than Clarkson and Fultz.

Defensively I agree with you, I was arguing about the offensive. I'm not even sure you were even saying they wouldn't fit offensively now.

Princeinrevolt wrote:

ALL HAIL wrote:It's a balance thing, prince. You need the two guards who get the most minutes to balance out each other, especially on defense.

Curry and Thompson wouldn't work either if it weren't for Thompson's above average defense, but with his defense, it works just fine.

Russell needs to play next to someone who has a strong defensive pedigree. That ain't Fultz, it wasn't Lou Williams, sand it damn sure ain't Clarkson.

Nwaba, Brewer, and Ennis fit the archetype of what's needed much better than Clarkson and Fultz.

Defensively I agree with you, I was arguing about the offensive. I'm not even sure you were even saying they wouldn't fit offensively now.

Offensively it could be awkward as well. I say that only because of where they both are currently as players.

If Russell were already a twenty point scorer/fringe all star, offensively it would work fine. A pecking order would be established; there would be a clear "seniority".

This is reason why Clarkson and Russell could never work. Clarkson never had the chance to establish supremacy over the newcomer in Russell. Additionally, Clarkson, because of his age and extra year of experience, would innately have a very hard time submitting to Russell, even if Russell were playing at an elite level.

Inversely, because of seniority and a clear pecking order, Lillard, who was already cemented as a twenty point a game franchise cornerstone, was able to fit next to McCullough because McCullough was naturally submissive to to the already established Lillard (Note: On defense they're still a dumpster fire).

Backcourts need balance, and both guys need to clearly understand their offensive roles. It's clear to me that they offer no real defensive balance, and they don't really have a clear vision of their offensive roles when they are on the floor together.

Fultz would be just more of the same. If you're talking about drafting Fultz, you need to almost assuredly also be talking about trading Russell. If not, much like the Clarkson-Russell experiment, you're only delaying the inevitable ... and, in my opinion, "playing yourself" in the process.

I'm not a huge Russell fan, but I'd rather keep him because I can see him developing into a really good complimentary jump shooter off of a star they sign in free agency (i.e. George). His spot up jump shot, to me, is the most untapped part of his game.

If I'm the Lakers, I'm looking at Jackson first, Ntilikina second, and Ball third.

Jackson is the type of defensive animal with athleticism and high IQ that would accentuate and balance out Russell, thus making him a better player -- when there's balance, everyone plays better.

Even if there was a clear pecking order, they seem to have overlapping weaknesses (and strengths) and just don't seem complementary to each other. But I think the overlapping weaknesses is more relevant than overlapping strengths- if both players were great at defense then obviously no problems, just a great defensive backcourt.

If one was a deadeye jump shooter and the other a great penetrator that would be okay, instead they are both pretty good overall scorers, but neither being super-high efficiency at any particular aspect. Neither is a natural point guard, DLO seems the better overall playmaker.

I agree that you might run into similar problems with Fultz, though Fultz will be the better player than Clarkson.

I feel like DLO in a couple of years could be the 3rd piece on a very good team. I feel like his playmaking skills could make an impact there, and help make the team better. I'm not super-high on him, but there are aspects of his game that I do like.