RealGM

I was thinking about the question that has been raised leading up to the draft regarding whether or not D'lo is the right person to run our offense or if we are better off drafting Fox / Ball. Why do we have to pick between the two? Is Julius Randle, who has an awesome handle and vision, capable of being a great PG?

His size would give him a HUGE advantage over other PG's similar to Magic in the 80's. He can see over people and would be a freight train pushing the ball down the court. If we moved him to the point, the Lakers could do the following:

1. Move Ingram to SG where he would also have HUGE a size advantage
2. Draft Jackson and play him at SF
3. Trade D'lo and/or Clarkson and / or Black for a stretch four (Saric?)

Pat Riley always envisioned a team of 6' 9" players starting at every position. This would be it! Their new lineup would be:

PG...Randle...Ennis
SG...Ingram...FREE AGENT
SF...Jackson...Deng
PF...TRADE...Nance
C...Zubac...Mozgov

What do you think?

I think you're drunk.

Yeah, let's move our best rebounder away from the rim.

Are we trying to be the only team in the NBA that shoots under 30% from 3?

Why not Mozgov at PG and Ennis at C? Sign Stephen Hawking as a FA to back up D'Angelo at SG. Fire Luke Walton and hire Donald Sterling to coach the team. What could go wrong?

Not "PG" but he could be one of the primary facilitators in transition... He can also help facilitate in the half court as well...

But if you get a player like what Ball's SUPPOSED to be, you give him the ball like 85% of the time.

But if we draft someone like Jackson, Ingram, Randle and Russell will probably have to share.

Kilroy wrote:Not "PG" but he could be one of the primary facilitators in transition... He can also help facilitate in the half court as well...

But if you get a player like what Ball's SUPPOSED to be, you give him the ball like 85% of the time.

But if we draft someone like Jackson, Ingram, Randle and Russell will probably have to share.

Ball is a very low usage PG. Russell will be the one with the ball in his hands the most.

Michael Lucky wrote:

Kilroy wrote:Not "PG" but he could be one of the primary facilitators in transition... He can also help facilitate in the half court as well...

But if you get a player like what Ball's SUPPOSED to be, you give him the ball like 85% of the time.

But if we draft someone like Jackson, Ingram, Randle and Russell will probably have to share.

Ball is a very low usage PG. Russell will be the one with the ball in his hands the most.

You don't draft a player based on who he is, you draft him based on who you think he can be... We're obviously not drafting Ball to play off guard next to Russell... We're drafting Ball because Russell isn't very effective as a 1 guard and is much more comfortable and effective as a primary scorer off ball.

Kilroy wrote:

Michael Lucky wrote:

Kilroy wrote:Not "PG" but he could be one of the primary facilitators in transition... He can also help facilitate in the half court as well...

But if you get a player like what Ball's SUPPOSED to be, you give him the ball like 85% of the time.

But if we draft someone like Jackson, Ingram, Randle and Russell will probably have to share.

Ball is a very low usage PG. Russell will be the one with the ball in his hands the most.

You don't draft a player based on who he is, you draft him based on who you think he can be... We're obviously not drafting Ball to play off guard next to Russell... We're drafting Ball because Russell isn't very effective as a 1 guard and is much more comfortable and effective as a primary scorer off ball.

obviously, but if you think that means that Ball is going to have the ball in his hands more than Russell, you're mistaken. Again Ball's usage at UCLA was extremely low. That's because Ball never holds on to the ball much to create offense.

This is a joke right? Because that lineup is terrible.

Can't wait to read what slava has to say about this

This guy is smoking something really cool.

No, would be my answer. Otherwise often up for creative off the wall ideas, but this one is far fetched.

He can rebound and lead the break a la Odom but he's not a PG. Every opponent would dare him to shoot the three. If he dribbles from deep, he'll collect ten charges per game. Let t-Rex be t-Rex. He should aim for 15-15-5 every night. Rebound Randle!

I don't think you want Randle being a PG, but that said, I don't see why this subject is so crazy... We've talked about literally everyone else on the team playing PG, why not the guy that had basically the same assists as our 'best PG?"

My hope is that Juilius turns out to be a stronger, moe athletic Diaw type guy


(yes, I know that Pop and Greg Oden are more athletic than Boris. He's still plying pretty damn good though)

Randle can't run the point. He needs a full head of steam to get rolling or be matched up against a much slower player to be effective. While his ball handling is good for his size & position, I doubt it'll ever be good enough to probe the defense, and his lack of an outside shot is a greater disadvantage. His mentality isn't one to find the open guy much of the time (at this point in his career). Just for comparison, he's not nearly the prospect that Odom was as Odom played the point in early on in high school.

Russell is currently the only option to get things going when running the point. Clarkson isn't so good either. He can be a black hole (just as Randle can be) and is really just a drive and dish type (similar to what Randle does).

Kilroy wrote:I don't think you want Randle being a PG, but that said, I don't see why this subject is so crazy... We've talked about literally everyone else on the team playing PG, why not the guy that had basically the same assists as our 'best PG?"

If you think Randle is anywhere in the same stratosphere as Russell in ability to run point just cause of Randle's apg, you are as blind to Russell's talent as ever.

Watch some easily available vids from lakers film room go see the difference between someone like Russell reading and reacting to the defense compared to someone like Clarkson, much less Randle.

He makes way too many bad decisions with the ball in transition, let alone in the half court.

He has trouble keeping his dribble. Very clumsy with the ball. Would be a turnover machine. Best trait is rebounding, so you'd essentially be taking him farther away from the basket. Mediocre vision. Puts head down an often looks to score on the break. Can't shoot, so he wouldn't stretch the floor at all, which would lead to a spacing nightmare on offense.

Not really related to him playing PG, but while we're at it, he's a really really poor defender - one of the worst defenders that I've seen at the NBA level actually. Poor footwork on D, short arms so he doesn't alter shots, does not give effort on the defensive end. Consistently lets players beat him both off the dribble and down low. Really weak help defender. Zero shot blocking threat.

He really only has to plus skills: rebounding and muscling weaker players into easy buckets. He has almost zero "feel" for the game.

dockingsched wrote:

Kilroy wrote:I don't think you want Randle being a PG, but that said, I don't see why this subject is so crazy... We've talked about literally everyone else on the team playing PG, why not the guy that had basically the same assists as our 'best PG?"

If you think Randle is anywhere in the same stratosphere as Russell in ability to run point just cause of Randle's apg, you are as blind to Russell's talent as ever.

Watch some easily available vids from lakers film room go see the difference between someone like Russell reading and reacting to the defense compared to someone like Clarkson, much less Randle.

I didn't say any of that... In fact I pretty clearly stated the opposite.

Lakers film room are unmitigated Russell Homers... They have absolutely zero credibility on that particular subject. I can't believe you don't see that.

I guess the standard Russell defensiveness is going to ruin this thread too...