ImageImageImageImageImage

Lakers were interested in Nate Robinson, may have moved on.

Moderators: Kilroy, Danny Darko, TyCobb

User avatar
KEEPdaPEACEinLA
Freshman
Posts: 55
And1: 3
Joined: Jul 10, 2013

Re: Lakers were interested in Nate Robinson, may have moved  

Post#21 » by KEEPdaPEACEinLA » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:01 pm

lakerRD wrote:He is one of the most frustrating players for me to figure out.
He shows signs and flashes of brilliance but as a PG, you can't trust him to run the team.
You can't trust that he will make the right decisions.
He is fun to watch, has heart and is not afraid to penetrate, but then pulls up for a 3 on a fast break.
He would be a decent back up, but he has a lot of growing up to do before he become an impact player on a contending team.


He's a shorter, more athletically explosive version of Jamal Crawford only he's actually more proven and battle tested since he's done serious damage in the playoffs that have helped contribute to playoff wins. Jamal Crawford on the other hand...well, he once wore a headband I guess.
User avatar
Run-MKE 311
Senior
Posts: 553
And1: 9
Joined: Oct 22, 2012
Location: Left coast and the midwest

Re: Lakers were interested in Nate Robinson, may have moved  

Post#22 » by Run-MKE 311 » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:04 pm

Nate plays no D and is just an all-around pest, not sure if his scoring bursts are worth it.

This may be good to watch that ship sail.
Ball so hard.
User avatar
leeprettyp
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,950
And1: 680
Joined: Sep 18, 2012
Location: The City of Champions Los Angeles, CA
Contact:
       

Re: Lakers were interested in Nate Robinson, may have moved 

Post#23 » by leeprettyp » Wed Jul 17, 2013 2:09 pm

Run-MKE 311 wrote:Nate plays no D and is just an all-around pest, not sure if his scoring bursts are worth it.

This may be good to watch that ship sail.



I agree... I think 3 PG's is enough for this roster. Really 4 of you count Kobe. I think we need to focus on a PF
Image

Return to Los Angeles Lakers