haven't you heard, he is not athletic and can't shoot....
I mean I trust Mikes evaluation, but with his tools lock him in a gym with Kobe and it could get scary. Then again I’ve heard bad things about his attitude and desire for the game
I'd rather have Kobe teach Culver or KPJ.
I recall you were not high on Tatum either. What were your concerns with him 2 years ago? _________________ Previously LBJ23
haven't you heard, he is not athletic and can't shoot....
I mean I trust Mikes evaluation, but with his tools lock him in a gym with Kobe and it could get scary. Then again I’ve heard bad things about his attitude and desire for the game
I'd rather have Kobe teach Culver or KPJ.
I recall you were not high on Tatum either. What were your concerns with him 2 years ago?
he was very high on Tatum by the time the draft came around....
1 actually has shown range to 30' since HS and made no adjustment from HS to NCAA.
The other, dropped 20% across the board from the field outside of FT% and needs to make an adjustment.
Who do you think is going to be successful?
I think the key assumption there is... what is the definition of successful?
I'm thinking more along the lines of someone like Garland vs Hunter/Culver (not Reddish) when asking that... i.e., who is going to help us be more successful during the next 2 seasons if the definition of successful is winning a ring while LeBron is here.
Just so you know, I'm usually always in favor of drafting the BPA because that usually works out better in the long-term... but this is a "weird" situation we are in... which is why I'm very undecided.
If Reddish can't shoot, he provides worse spacing than current Lakers, even with his defense. He's too TO prone to be an initiator. Like, the defense isn't even good enough to keep him on the floor.
But hell, I'm trying to get BPA, not the guy for immediate help for LeBron's window. I legit don't care about the window because decision making based on that window has ruined the past several years.
You have me convinced on Reddish. I was asking about Garland vs Hunter/Culver. Hunter especially, because of what I've been reading about him being more NBA ready and a 3&D guy.
I'm totally on board with that thinking, I really dislike that everything is revolving around his window. What else can we do but accept it though, if the FO decides that's how it's going to be?
haven't you heard, he is not athletic and can't shoot....
I mean I trust Mikes evaluation, but with his tools lock him in a gym with Kobe and it could get scary. Then again I’ve heard bad things about his attitude and desire for the game
I'd rather have Kobe teach Culver or KPJ.
I recall you were not high on Tatum either. What were your concerns with him 2 years ago?
I had him #3. I don't know what you're referring to. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
haven't you heard, he is not athletic and can't shoot....
I mean I trust Mikes evaluation, but with his tools lock him in a gym with Kobe and it could get scary. Then again I’ve heard bad things about his attitude and desire for the game
I'd rather have Kobe teach Culver or KPJ.
I recall you were not high on Tatum either. What were your concerns with him 2 years ago?
I had him #3. I don't know what you're referring to.
You didn't have concerns about his shooting that year? He wasn't a great 3 point shooter in College _________________ Previously LBJ23
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 1:58 pm Post subject:
LAL1947 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
LAL1947 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
1 actually has shown range to 30' since HS and made no adjustment from HS to NCAA.
The other, dropped 20% across the board from the field outside of FT% and needs to make an adjustment.
Who do you think is going to be successful?
I think the key assumption there is... what is the definition of successful?
I'm thinking more along the lines of someone like Garland vs Hunter/Culver (not Reddish) when asking that... i.e., who is going to help us be more successful during the next 2 seasons if the definition of successful is winning a ring while LeBron is here.
Just so you know, I'm usually always in favor of drafting the BPA because that usually works out better in the long-term... but this is a "weird" situation we are in... which is why I'm very undecided.
If Reddish can't shoot, he provides worse spacing than current Lakers, even with his defense. He's too TO prone to be an initiator. Like, the defense isn't even good enough to keep him on the floor.
But hell, I'm trying to get BPA, not the guy for immediate help for LeBron's window. I legit don't care about the window because decision making based on that window has ruined the past several years.
You have me convinced on Reddish. I was asking about Garland vs Hunter/Culver. Hunter especially, because of what I've been reading about him being more NBA ready and a 3&D guy.
I'm totally on board with that thinking, I really dislike that everything is revolving around his window. What else can we do but accept it though, if the FO decides that's how it's going to be?
The draft is just about talent acquisition. The only way to be successful at that is doing the best work just trying to find long term successful NBA players, regardless of skill. Once that goal is reached, it's keep or trade for assets.
Almost the entire youthcore was based on BPAs. We built a team on it. I think Garland is more likely to struggle early. I also think as a Laker, he'll be relegated to spot up shooting until the rest of the skills come along. Lower floor than Culver? Absolutely. It's also the best possible case for him to be successful considering he's playable by his best NBA skill, shooting. LAL doesn't need PnR and passing out of him for a couple years. We have 2 guys that do that.
I think Culver is more likely to be successful out of the gate. I really like him too. I have questions about his athleticism at wing, and he's elite SG size, not a SF, which makes it a bit more questionable next level. Would you play Wade at 3? That's Really close to Culver's size. But at least he added strength, plays high end defense, and barely has an average jumper despite still needing to make adjustments. Some adjustments take 1 summer like Josh Hart. Others take years. I don't think Garland needs to make that adjustment. His shot is already 1 motion, quick, and highly accurate in dynamic situations since HS. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
haven't you heard, he is not athletic and can't shoot....
I mean I trust Mikes evaluation, but with his tools lock him in a gym with Kobe and it could get scary. Then again I’ve heard bad things about his attitude and desire for the game
I'd rather have Kobe teach Culver or KPJ.
I recall you were not high on Tatum either. What were your concerns with him 2 years ago?
I had him #3. I don't know what you're referring to.
You didn't have concerns about his shooting that year? He wasn't a great 3 point shooter in College
No because I paid attention to the change in Duke's play type for a month and his 3pt shooting jumped considerably. BOS gave him the same shot selection his rookie year and he started out fire.
Also had to rely on his skill coaches. He had been doing that for years. I didn't bank on everything clicking his rookie year. It just did.
Tatum also shot 11% better at the rim and 12% better from all other mid-range areas compared to Reddish.
Also, Tatum was knocking on 85% FT _________________ Resident Car Nut.
The scouting department seems to have a good eye for Swiss Army knife players, but they haven't seemed to crack the formula for a dead-eye shooter. Some of that is on who they draft and some of it is on development.
Keep in mind, NBA League average this past season was 35.5% from 3PT. Of the aforementioned names, Hart barely hovers above that. Given the direction the league is moving, we can't afford to whiff again on the most important offensive skill.
Um. The fact that it's basically almost a 100% hit rate on successful NBA players is one of the biggest accomplishments by the scouting team, in the entire league.
I'm not knocking the scouting team for finding good, all around rotational talent. They value well rounded basketball players. I'm pointing out their blind spot for finding elite shooting talent. It's an honest (and truthful) critique.
So, you're blaming the scouting team for not finding shooting talent that probably wasn't there at the pick?
Okay sure.
They didn't have a blind spot with Moe Wagner and Svi. Just people assume it translates right away. Really, it depends on the player.
You can get on them for passing up Landry Shamet, but Landry doesn't develop well without Redick's tutelage for half a season.
Landry Shamet slashed 48%/43.7%/81.1% in college. You're giving all his shooting credit to a few months with JJ Redick? Really?
Yes really.
1. Shamet struggled through his own PreDraft combine. He struggled to shoot off screen.
2. Shamet admitted in interviews how much Redick helped him with shot prep.
3. You can see the inconsistency month to month with the gradual improvements.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/shamela01/splits/2019
4. Then he got traded to the Clippers, where his frequency in spot up stayed high and did less off screens.
Your turn.
Question. Why didn't Mykhailiuk's 3pt shooting translate from Kansas?
Landry Shamet's was rated in the 93rd percentile shooting off screens at Witchita State by Synergy. His spot up numbers were in the 100th percentile (!).
The Stepien listed Shamet's off-ball movement and use of screens as a strength of his.
Quote:
Really knows how to move without the ball in Wichita’s motion offense. Cuts well off passing bigs and knows how to read screens and his defender off-ball (curling on down screens, cutting backdoor on overplays). Consistently relocates off ball bettering passing angles.
Do I think JJ Redick helped? Sure. Is it the sole or even main reason for Shamet's shooting prowess? Not even close.
Joined: 24 Feb 2003 Posts: 6401 Location: Past left field
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:12 pm Post subject:
Mike@LG wrote:
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
IMO Svi could not translate due to mental issues. Similar to Sasha Vujacic. Great practice player, good mechanics but could not perform under pressure of a NBA game. Yes Sasha made two clutch free throws in the finals but other than that came up small in big situations. _________________ Darvin Ham is an idiot!
Joined: 06 Oct 2018 Posts: 5181 Location: Sin City
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:13 pm Post subject:
I'm a firm believer that Svi's shooting didn't translate because he came to the Lakers and this team's poor shooting is like a fast spreading disease that will infect anyone who puts on the uniform
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:15 pm Post subject:
Laker7 wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
IMO Svi could not translate due to mental issues. Similar to Sasha Vujacic. Great practice player, good mechanics but could not perform under pressure of a NBA game. Yes Sasha made two clutch free throws in the finals but other than that came up small in big situations.
I do think that's a part of it. I also think LAL didn't really have the mentors to help him compensate for wingspan issues with for off screen looks. His lift varied from game to game on jumpers and of his legs weren't in it, the shot was not going in.
Just making a point that even elite NCAA shooting doesn't translate immediately to the NBA. Even Garland has a longer wingspan than Svi and is more likely to see contests from smaller PGs than bigger wing types. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Last edited by Jack's Room on Sun May 19, 2019 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Turns out Garland and Reddish are the guys who will be heavily debated this year. Ironically, I don’t think we’ll take either after all this debate.
based on?
Reddish is the furthest from being ready to contribute of the guys in that range and I think Lebrons timeline is a big factor. Garland for similar reasons, small guards take time to adjust and he may be tough to get on the floor in big games his rookie season because of defense. I think they want an immediate contributor which would be Hunter, Culver, or White. With that said, if Garland kills his workout I can see them taking a risk on him at the expense of LeBron timeline but he’d need to really show out.
I'm not excited about a prospect that we haft to scrape up HS stats
That's all guys like Kobe and KG had back in the day.
Kobe had to go one-on-one vs. Michael Cooper in a private, pre-draft workout. 17 year old kid vs. 40-year old man. Kobe kicked his ass and West started looking for a trade partner.
I remember on that weekly NBA show that CNN had back then (oddly enough), West was shown on film saying that we (FOs) don't want HSers in the league and that was at worst only two weeks before he was in for his pre-Draft workout. _________________ GOAT MAGIC REEL SEDALE TRIBUTE EDDIE DONX!
Watching the combine scrimmage Isaiah Roby is a nice player.
Long, good athleticism, average ball skills, defensive potential and good form on his jumper. Kind of a wing version of Larry Nance with potential to be a Robert Covington type player.
Don't see him mocked highly or at all. Would be a nice 2nd round consideration.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:25 pm Post subject:
Jack's Room wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
NCAA numbers don't always translate next level man.
Off screen shooting is different with 6'7 dudes with 6'10" wingspans and great athletes flying out at you.
Didn't see any of that 93%tile off screen shooting during the combine. He couldn't get a clean look.
So, why didn't Svi's shooting translate?
Shamet went 3-7 FG, 2-4 3PT in the first scrimmage and 1-8 FG, 0-4 3PT in the second scrimmage. He also went 2-5 FG, 2-5 3PT in the only summer league game he played. Shamet didn't light the world on fire, but it's a sample size of literally 20 shots. I'm not making any value judgments on a player's ability on what are essentially pickup games.
As for Svi, I'm not entirely sure. To me, he looked a combination of scared and hurried. Not only was he bricking wide open looks, he was bricking freebies at the stripe. Down in the G-League, Svi was playing more loose and hitting shots he normally makes.
Did you watch the scrimmages and the shot types?
I feel like I'm being tested on my knowledge of Shamet when I said on a podcast in April he should be consideration for the late 1st. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
