thebuzzardman wrote: Meat wrote:
thebuzzardman wrote:Last point.
Randle is like Zion
RJ isn't really like Ingram
Ball is like Ball.
If the Pels are kinda/sorta having some issues with a Ball/Ingram/Zion lineup where Ingram is a more advanced "get his own shot" guy vs RJ right now, why would the Knicks be that much better with a similar set of players, only RJ isn't as good as Ingram - yet.
Other than RJ is a more team oriented player than Ingram, but I don't think that changes the equation.
Again, I'd be fine with the Knicks getting him. It depends who the other wing is for next 2 years of RJ's development.
you think the pel's problems are on the offensive end?
Zion is the worst defending pf in the league. point blank period.
Ingram is a trash defender
My point is, you add Lonzo and at best you duplicate a lesser version of the Pels offense, which while it plays at tempo, isn't THAT great. And that's with Ingram being much better in the role of creative wing than RJ is now and for the next probably two seasons after that.
And that's if the Knicks decided to play at tempo, which Thibs doesn't seem to do.
This isn't knocking Lonzo or RJ. It's more, that if the Knicks DO decide to get Lonzo (and I sort of doubt they'll pursue him) then it doesn't make sense unless there's a creative wing added that's better at it than current RJ.
I want to emphasize I say "Current RJ" because I think RJ will become a wing who can get his shot anytime from anywhere but that that player is three seasons away. Where RJ will be the super old age of 23.
See my other posts on this.
If Lonzo starts, there is only Randle who is capable of getting his shot off at will. Rose stays on the bench.
If Rose starts and Lonzo starts, then Bullocks goes to the bench, and is Lonzo really, in totality, better than Bullocks, but he'll cost at least 2X more.
Lonzo at PG with RJ and another wing who can create, while retaining Rose & Bullocks for the bench, now THAT makes sense.
Also, the Knicks could acquire Lonzo and kind of juggle the lineup the way they do now with Payton, where Lonzo plays 18 mpg at PG, Rose gets more minutes at PG, and then Lonzo gets moved over to Bullocks spot for his other 15-18 minutes, while waiting to get that other wing
Yeah I agree, I think Lonzo might create more issues instead of solving the ones we already have.
He's not a point guard in my view (let alone a Thibs point guard) and he's obviously not taking RJ's spot. So that leaves Bullock on the wings. But is he as good a shooter as Bullock? Can he navigate screens and catch-and-shoot on the move like Bullock? Can he screen for Randle the way Bullock does? I don't think that's his game. Bullock is a shooter, Lonzo is a ball-mover who can shoot albeit inconsistently. So replacing Bullock with Lonzo in the line-up would probably be a downgrade.
If he doesn't help the starting unit, then that relegates him to a bench role. But we already have a two-guard rotation coming off the bench in Rose and Quickley.
So I'm a little confused what exactly Lonzo would bring to this team. In my opinion there isn't a role for him on this team, unless you want him to be your point guard based on the rationale that he's an upgrade over Payton, which is absolutely true but doesn't really mean much since Payton is probably one of the 5 worst rotation point guards in the NBA.
Would he be a bad signing? Probably not. But would he be a good signing? I'm not sure either, and probably lean towards no at the end of the day.
PS: Just realized I only focused on the offensive side of the ball. Ball could definitely help us take another step defensively.