The #2 Pick

[TyCobb]

Spurs didn't play around Duncan on offense and Shaq was 10 years ago. KG Pau and Dirk were all players that faced up towards the basket and hit jumpshots as well. I'm not saying Okafor can't develop that but his range leaves something to be desired.

I guess i'm the only one here that wants Towns

Or the only one that didn't read OP.

Most believe, me included, that Towns is the better fit for the Lakers.

[Wavy Q]

wait didnt you just say this

Okafor easily for me. Dominant big men can win in any era of basketball.

I'm confused now

[Wavy Q]

Spurs didn't play around Duncan on offense and Shaq was 10 years ago. KG Pau and Dirk were all players that faced up towards the basket and hit jumpshots as well. I'm not saying Okafor can't develop that but his range leaves something to be desired.

I guess i'm the only one here that wants Towns

I would not be against Towns if T-Wolves go with Okafor. I am more arguing against Russell (not that he is a bad player or anything). I just feel there is a CLEAR separation between Towns & Okafor and Russell and Mudiay.

Ok i think we were arguing for nothing then because i totally agree, Russell and Mudiay were only options to me if we ended up with the #4 pick.

[LApwnd]

there's no gurantee Minn is taking KAT, neither KAT or Okafor are consensus #1. It will be up to them to decide if they want to win sooner or later, sooner would be Okafor later would be KAT. KAT is at least 2-3yrs away from being a legit 2way player and that's with optional development. Also there is that little detail that is quite intriguing that another poster noted, Okafor and Wiggins have the same agent who is close college friends with flip who is Minn coach AND GM!!!

[willywazza]

I say take Okafor because he is a dominant big already on offense and he's young enough to improve defensively.

The Lakers have an unique opportunity to DRAFT (not sign or trade) the next great Laker big.

This franchise has lacked this post presence since the days of Shaq and drafting Big Oak will more than erase the sour memory that was Dwight.

[SashAlex]

Okafor... Russell... Both are great and the choice depends on the needs of the franchise.

You take Russell - good ball-handling, very good shooter, sees the court well, flashy etc. But at the same time he's that combo 6'5'' if I'm not mistaken, that might be slower for a PG and smaller for a SG often. Plus from the scouting reports they say he lacks athleticism and could be run over and will need time to muscle up a bit and adjust. Definitely talented.

Okafor - NBA ready offense, no doubt. I've seen a couple of scouting reports and it caught my eye immediately. Nice touch, good passer, not an offensive hole. It took Andrew Bynum a couple of seasons(no College, right!) to develop his offensive skillset while this young guy is there to grab and develop his high potential. Nice footwork as well. Maybe I'm an offensive biased fan, but I like him more than Towns. The defensive liability is not that worrying. That's more fixable than the offense imho. Plus it all depends on what kind of defense schemes the coach uses. One thing of a concern is that he needs to as well add some more athleticism a bit, be leaner and add some lateral quickness.

So I am for Okafor no doubt. I like bigs, even more so offensively talented bigs, who are to tough to pass.

But then, what if the management has something different going on and we could end up trading the 2nd pick? Did Mitch pop the champagne because of having the possibility to draft a talented young prospect or having in mind to trade the pick?

That's the most interesting Draft as a Laker fan. ))

[LApwnd]

I know DMC and Durant are flashy names but its time to stop the home run dream deals, we should've learned our lesson with Howard/Nash debacle.

[Rafer24]

I´m not sold on Okafor 100%. Would prefer Towns, but Okafor would be a very good consolation prize.

May I ask why? A polished post game is nothing to sniff at, Okafor is twice the offensive player that Towns is at this point.

Okafor has the ability to be a elite low post scorer, and i think his defense will improve, thats for sure.

But, i just think Towns will be a better player. His defense, his rim protection.... And don´t forget his far superior athleticism compared to Okafor.

I´m very high on Randel as well, so i just think the Randle-Towns combination would be the best scenario for L.A. But i would be happy with Okafor in a laker jersey.

[jirojan]

i agree with the idea of drafting russell and take some picks off phili's hands and trade him for okafor or kat

[Goudelock]

Here's a question: People who want them to pick Russell (or Mudiay) say that the league is perimeter oriented and that's the way the league is going. Thus, you should pick the good guard before the good big man. But what if the opposite is true?

Think of all of the good young centers in the league at the moment: Embiid, Gobert, Whiteside, Cousins, Nurkic, Noel (?), and Valencunas, along with the incoming guys like Okafor, Towns, and possibly Turner. That a lot of young, good big men with skill. So what if the next trend is to play a variation of the one in, 4 out offense? Wouldn't having a great young center be a good thing?

Just an idea I had.

[Indy2LA]

This is a pretty awesome problem to have

On one hand, I watched Russell destroy my beloved Hoosiers time and time again. That kid is special.

On the other hand, and maybe this is crazy, Jahlil Okafor looks like Tim Duncan to me.

Pair in the fact that he was developed by the greatest coach in NCAA history. If not the best coach in the history of Basketball. With respect to Bobby Knight, Dean Smith and John Wooden. Coach K said that Jahlil might be the best player he ever coached. They could reunite in the Olympics soon. I hope he's a Laker by then. I voted for Okafor.

[nuttybuddy009]

Let's pray that KAT slips to #2. If Randle is supposedly our 4 for the future, we will have the weakest front line defensively with Okafor in the 5.

[Showtime:Part2]

Let's pray that KAT slips to #2. If Randle is supposedly our 4 for the future, we will have the weakest front line defensively with Okafor in the 5.

Sure I want kat too (assuming he slips), but this hating on Oaks d is unwarranted. A rookie odom/rookie Bynum would be bad on d too. Players develop. Also it's not really like dangelo is good on d either. In fact, he's awful

[Luciferswings]

I voted Russell with really no expectation anyone would agree, or that the Lakers will do it. I'm pleasantly surprised to see I'm wrong about the former. The thing about Okafor that worries me is that the nearest prototype for him in this league is Al Jefferson. Obviously hopefully a little better, but that's more or less the comparison. That's pretty scary.

I saw a few people post remarks about how they were confused, and surely you take a dominant big man. The thing is, the NBA has been evolving since the 2004-5 rule changes. The removal of handcheck rules, combined with changes to zone rules and defensive 3 seconds, have opened up the court, and made post-ups a less and less efficient option. A lot of people will then ask "well, how come the Lakers won as recently as 2010!" That's mainly due to a second development, which is the introduction of Thibs defensive innovations on the strong side, cutting off the corner 3, etc. Motion offenses and pace and space became much more important post 2004, but it wasn't decisive yet, and teams like the Suns were still being edged out by more talented teams like the Spurs (who could also run pretty well). For motion offenses to really take hold, something else needed to happen. That something else was Thibs strong side defensive systems, which he brought into the picture in 2008. By 2011, when Thibs became head coach and proved his schemes could work on teams without the Celtics personnel, other teams had well and truly stolen his systems, which further hurt the effectiveness of iso-ball (beyond simply making it less efficient, like the earlier rule changes had done). Motion offenses were suddenly so important for an additional reason to efficiency; Thibs schemes couldn't stop it. You can't focus on the strong side or the isolation, because there is no isolation or strong side. Anyone can score from anywhere. No play is necessarily being called up.

Since 2011 we've seen these changes well and truly dominate the NBA mindset. The Mavs won the title taking advantage of both the 2005 changes and the 2011 Thibs defensive principles. The Heat, realising what had happened when they relied to much on iso-ball, adjusted to it. The next 2 years when they won the title they did it going small, with a lot more ball movement and spacing. The Spurs, who everyone thought were finished, had been gradually re-inventing their team since 2011, using the aforementioned principles. They went to the WCFs, the Finals, and then won it all. This years Hawks and Warriors are other great examples. The next stage in the development appears to be what the Bucks are doing; trying to find a way to stop the motion offense using a switching system. So what does all that mean for bigs like Okafor? Nothing good. In the new NBA bigs are meant to roll to the rim, switch a lot, be athletic and quick defenders on the pick and roll (because everything is now a pick and roll of some kind), and score mainly on above the rim put backs, etc. Iso's are relatively rare, because unlike the old days pounding it inside and letting a big "go to work" isn't an efficient shot. It's actually predictable and easier to stop, unless it's relatively rare, and is accompanied by a spacing motion offense (like the Spurs do when they occasionally go to Duncan in the post late in games). That's why Dwight doesn't do any offense anymore, like he wanted to try and do on the Lakers when he was here. Not that Dwight was great at post-ups. The ideal big in the modern NBA is a fast, athletic defender, who has a money jumpshot, and who can roll to the rim and get alley-oops. So, basically the opposite of Okafor. D.Russell reminds me a lot of the draft situation with Chris Paul. Somehow teams had talked themselves into the idea he wasn't a top 2 pick, because he wasn't big or whatever. This is a guy who, if Towns didn't exist, would be my #1 pick.

[Dilly]

Former Lakers star Magic Johnson also was optimistic about whomever the team will get with the No. 2 pick, tweeting that "with the #2 pick we can get a great big man, add some good free agents this summer & we will be right back as a contender next season!"

[Showtime:Part2]

I voted Russell with really no expectation anyone would agree, or that the Lakers will do it. I'm pleasantly surprised to see I'm wrong about the former. The thing about Okafor that worries me is that the nearest prototype for him in this league is Al Jefferson. Obviously hopefully a little better, but that's more or less the comparison. That's pretty scary.

I saw a few people post remarks about how they were confused, and surely you take a dominant big man. The thing is, the NBA has been evolving since the 2004-5 rule changes. The removal of handcheck rules, combined with changes to zone rules and defensive 3 seconds, have opened up the court, and made post-ups a less and less efficient option. A lot of people will then ask "well, how come the Lakers won as recently as 2010!" That's mainly due to a second development, which is the introduction of Thibs defensive innovations on the strong side, cutting off the corner 3, etc. Motion offenses and pace and space became much more important post 2004, but it wasn't decisive yet, and teams like the Suns were still being edged out by more talented teams like the Spurs (who could also run pretty well). For motion offenses to really take hold, something else needed to happen. That something else was Thibs strong side defensive systems, which he brought into the picture in 2008. By 2011, when Thibs became head coach and proved his schemes could work on teams without the Celtics personnel, other teams had well and truly stolen his systems, which further hurt the effectiveness of iso-ball (beyond simply making it less efficient, like the earlier rule changes had done). Motion offenses were suddenly so important for an additional reason to efficiency; Thibs schemes couldn't stop it. You can't focus on the strong side or the isolation, because there is no isolation or strong side. Anyone can score from anywhere. No play is necessarily being called up.

Since 2011 we've seen these changes well and truly dominate the NBA mindset. The Mavs won the title taking advantage of both the 2005 changes and the 2011 Thibs defensive principles. The Heat, realising what had happened when they relied to much on iso-ball, adjusted to it. The next 2 years when they won the title they did it going small, with a lot more ball movement and spacing. The Spurs, who everyone thought were finished, had been gradually re-inventing their team since 2011, using the aforementioned principles. They went to the WCFs, the Finals, and then won it all. This years Hawks and Warriors are other great examples. The next stage in the development appears to be what the Bucks are doing; trying to find a way to stop the motion offense using a switching system. So what does all that mean for bigs like Okafor? Nothing good. In the new NBA bigs are meant to roll to the rim, switch a lot, be athletic and quick defenders on the pick and roll (because everything is now a pick and roll of some kind), and score mainly on above the rim put backs, etc. Iso's are relatively rare, because unlike the old days pounding it inside and letting a big "go to work" isn't an efficient shot. It's actually predictable and easier to stop, unless it's relatively rare, and is accompanied by a spacing motion offense (like the Spurs do when they occasionally go to Duncan in the post late in games). That's why Dwight doesn't do any offense anymore, like he wanted to try and do on the Lakers when he was here. Not that Dwight was great at post-ups. The ideal big in the modern NBA is a fast, athletic defender, who has a money jumpshot, and who can roll to the rim and get alley-oops. So, basically the opposite of Okafor. D.Russell reminds me a lot of the draft situation with Chris Paul. Somehow teams had talked themselves into the idea he wasn't a top 2 pick, because he wasn't big or whatever. This is a guy who, if Towns didn't exist, would be my #1 pick.

The c Webb kings ran one of the best motion offenses back in the day, how'd that turn out? The spurs have Duncan and kwahi (and Okafor is just as good of a passer as Duncan so not sure why he can't be part of a motion offense). The heat won bc lebron started playing more in the post and didn't choke in the finals. Don't over complicate things, take the big. Talented wings are easier to find. And why is oaks prototype al jeff and not what Bynum could have been without the attitude/injuries. That's like me being dishonest and saying Russell's prototype is Larry Hughes not Brandon Roy

[LApwnd]

I voted Russell with really no expectation anyone would agree, or that the Lakers will do it. I'm pleasantly surprised to see I'm wrong about the former. The thing about Okafor that worries me is that the nearest prototype for him in this league is Al Jefferson. Obviously hopefully a little better, but that's more or less the comparison. That's pretty scary.

since you're a hawks fan I like your view on how your D works with Milsap/Horford as your big because thats how I see the comparison with Randle/Okafor.

[Luciferswings]

The c Webb kings ran one of the best motion offenses back in the day, how'd that turn out? The spurs have Duncan and kwahi (and Okafor is just as good of a passer as Duncan so not sure why he can't be part of a motion offense). The heat won bc lebron started playing more in the post and didn't choke in the finals. Don't over complicate things, take the big. Talented wings are easier to find

Well, the Kings were awesome, weren't they? It took a never before or after seen pairing of 2 top 4 players in the league to put them down, and those 2 guys actually ran a heck of a lot of pick and rolls. But that's kind of missing my point. When the Kings did it, they weren't able to benefit from the new rule changes that were about to kick in (in 2005) and the second development I talked about, the Thibs defensive innovations, hadn't happened yet. Those things have now happened, and the league has changed.

I saw someone make the Duncan/Okafor comparison the other day. It's a really bad one. Duncan is an all-time great defender, was very athletic in his prime, and has a money jump shot. Okafor isn't any of those things. If I had to pick a guy from this draft who has a chance to emulate Duncan it would be Towns, not Okafor.

since you're a hawks fan I like your view on how your D works with Milsap/Horford as your big because thats how I see the comparison with Randle/Okafor.

It works great, because Horford is an excellent defender (with a money jump shot). Remember how big Brook Lopez was going to give them so much trouble? The Hawks just stopped him from even getting the ball in the post most of the time (Zach Lowe has some articles on it, complete with youtube links) thanks to their defensive schemes. Of course, it would be even better if Horford was 7 feet tall, but you can't have everything.

[Mirjalovic]

Okafor is closer to DeMarcus than Al Jefferson

You can't go wrong with either Okafor and Russell, but it's should be Okafor.

Remember Randle ? The best freshman and the first option on 2nd best team in the country ? The media were focus on his weaknesses and forget what he actually excelled. He is a furious rebounder and finisher under the rim, has decent athletiscm, and closer to Blake Griffin than Derrick Williams, but medias tried to tell you the opposite, hence his stock was dropped a lot despite his talent and performance in NCAA.

That's same goes for Okafor. He's peobably the best freshman right noa and arguably the best player on championship team (i like Tyus Jones too), and media focused on his weaknesses. Same goes with Jordan Clarkson, was a first round talent, but media told us if he is 't pure pg, combo guard, can't pass, can't shoot, bla bla bla

Take Okafor and run


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Showtime:Part2]

The c Webb kings ran one of the best motion offenses back in the day, how'd that turn out? The spurs have Duncan and kwahi (and Okafor is just as good of a passer as Duncan so not sure why he can't be part of a motion offense). The heat won bc lebron started playing more in the post and didn't choke in the finals. Don't over complicate things, take the big. Talented wings are easier to find

Well, the Kings were awesome, weren't they? It took a never before or after seen pairing of 2 top 4 players in the league to put them down, and those 2 guys actually ran a heck of a lot of pick and rolls. But that's kind of missing my point. When the Kings did it, they weren't able to benefit from the new rule changes that were about to kick in (in 2005) and the second development I talked about, the Thibs defensive innovations, hadn't happened yet. Those things have now happened, and the league has changed.

I saw someone make the Duncan/Okafor comparison the other day. It's a really bad one. Duncan is an all-time great defender, was very athletic in his prime, and has a money jump shot. Okafor isn't any of those things. If I had to pick a guy from this draft who has a chance to emulate Duncan it would be Towns, not Okafor.

since you're a hawks fan I like your view on how your D works with Milsap/Horford as your big because thats how I see the comparison with Randle/Okafor.

It works great, because Horford is an excellent defender (with a money jump shot). Remember how big Brook Lopez was going to give them so much trouble? The Hawks just stopped him from even getting the ball in the post most of the time (Zach Lowe has some articles on it, complete with youtube links) thanks to their defensive schemes. Of course, it would be even better if Horford was 7 feet tall, but you can't have everything.

You realize your whole argument is flawed bc the 2010 celtics still ran motion offense + thibs d system and lost to la right? I'm not sure how you are insinuating that the celtics didn't use thibs d scheme in 2010. That is just factually incorrect. Also this whole idea of drafting players with the 2nd overall pick to fit one type of offense is absurd. You take the best player. For all you know, motion offenses will be dead in five years.