lakerevolution wrote:He can't bang inside like Rambis, nor shoot 3s like Coop, but if Rambis, Coop and Rick Fox all combined to have a baby . . maybe it would be Lonzo Ball. Given the chance to draft all over again, would we still select him? I'm thinking no - however, the acquisitions of Randle, Kuzma, Ingram, Zubac and Hart more than make up for Lonzo's shortcomings and our apparently lessened expectations of him so far. Do the Warriors win their first title without Harrison Barnes, or David Lee? The pickup of Iguodala proved to be more decisive than the contributions of either Barnes or Lee in the long run - although each played very necessary roles and glued things together at times.
So Lonzo - despite his scoring at UCLA and all the hype surrounding his draft to his hometown Lakers - is no more than a "glue guy" for us right now. Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Mark Madsen . . . it goes without saying that Kuzma, Hart, Ingram and now even Zubac have shown their big-boy heart and soul on the court. Will we see a breakout from Lonzo - a guy who LeBron lovingly (protectively) describes as "a complete player"? Or should we be ok with a RambisCoopFox frankenstein?
3Peatkb24 wrote:I am having a tough time comparing Lonzo to any past Lakers. He is sort of like Coop but he can't shoot 3's like Coop. He Rebounds and plays D similar to Coop but Coop was a Good 3 point shooter. He isn't like Fisher either because Fish was a Good 3 point shooter. Lonzo is sort of unique IMO. He is like a poor mans Jason Kidd in reality because of his Passing ability, Defense, and Rebounding, I guess that is a compliment or is it? He is a Good player but not Very Good or close to Great.
KobeMVP888 wrote:3Peatkb24 wrote:I am having a tough time comparing Lonzo to any past Lakers. He is sort of like Coop but he can't shoot 3's like Coop. He Rebounds and plays D similar to Coop but Coop was a Good 3 point shooter. He isn't like Fisher either because Fish was a Good 3 point shooter. Lonzo is sort of unique IMO. He is like a poor mans Jason Kidd in reality because of his Passing ability, Defense, and Rebounding, I guess that is a compliment or is it? He is a Good player but not Very Good or close to Great.
There's no need to compare him. He's being one helluva a trooper adjusting to a role alongside LeBron that he isn't necessarily suited for. I am sure he would get into much more of a rhythm on offense if he was in charge of organizing the offense. For the time being, he is making great passes, setting the best screens for LeBron on the perimeter and working on his shooting, which has been poor to inconsistent. At his size, with his speed and athleticism, I expect him to learn how to finish well over time, too. Remember, he missed the summer tending to his knee injury, but is getting stronger and healthier every day and hasn't missed any games yet this season, so knock on wood.
HAVING SAID THAT, it is undeniable that he is the best perimeter defender on the team and if the Lakers continue to keep Brandon Ingram as the shooting guard, those two will give opposing backcourts and wings fits for years with their length and instincts, especially Lonzo's instincts on the defensive end. The most foolish thing the Lakers could do is trade this unique talent. I still think that he will be the best of the young core as he matures. So all this Lonzo hate out there is puzzling to me as is the non-recognition of his potential. I just don't get it.
3Peatkb24 wrote:If I had to lean toward trading him or not, I would not. I think he is Good and plays a solid role with LeBron by his side. So I have no hate toward him, I just wonder if he will actually ever be an all-around Great player? His Defense is very important as you have pointed out and I love his ability to get a Rebound and a lead a fastbreak. When it comes to the REV, he sounds like he isn't sold on Lonzo at all and REV has been watching like us for 40+ years and his opinions are well respected. An example of a TrueFan that thinks he is tradable.
lakerevolution wrote:Rondo put the entire team on his back when Bron went down. Not Lonzo. The Warriors made a huge run from 15 down to cut it to two, and Rondo was dishing it to everyone AND getting Curry-like buckets inside and from deep his damn self. Maybe we need a Rondo-est Yard page. Was Lonzo resting, and why? The game was on the line. I didn't see too much Lonzo blocking shots and getting boards and facilitating buckets on the other end - what I saw was Rondo and Zubac and a few of our young core putting in work without Lonzo as a factor at all. Lonzo may be "talented" but he's defininitely not one of our strongest players and that makes him block-choppable. If we're throwing KCP, Ingram, Randle, Hart or Kuzma into trades, we have to scrape Lonzo off our windshield wipers as well.
3Peatkb24 wrote:Alot of winning has to do with Chemistry. I watch the Pacers and that team has perfect/Great chemistry. They all love playing with each other. I do not see that with the Lakers. To me the Lakers have more talent than the Pacers do. LeBron is better than Oladipo, and so on and so on. I would trade for Anthony Davis and include anyone not named LeBron, Kuzma, and Ball. I think a Big 4 of LeBron, Davis, Ball, and Kuzma would rule the roost if they find that Chemistry. I would have no problem giving the Pelicans Ingram, Hart, McGee, even Lance who just turned 28 = a proven Good Vet but he's young, and a slew of Draft picks in the next 2 drafts for Davis.
lakerevolution wrote:3Peatkb24 wrote:Alot of winning has to do with Chemistry. I watch the Pacers and that team has perfect/Great chemistry. They all love playing with each other. I do not see that with the Lakers. To me the Lakers have more talent than the Pacers do. LeBron is better than Oladipo, and so on and so on. I would trade for Anthony Davis and include anyone not named LeBron, Kuzma, and Ball. I think a Big 4 of LeBron, Davis, Ball, and Kuzma would rule the roost if they find that Chemistry. I would have no problem giving the Pelicans Ingram, Hart, McGee, even Lance who just turned 28 = a proven Good Vet but he's young, and a slew of Draft picks in the next 2 drafts for Davis.
Is Lonzo, at this point, any more of a success than D'Angelo was, at his point? I'm sure most would say yes, especially because we're 4 games over .500 instead of 12 games under. My point is: Does Lonzo bring less to us in a trade because he's only valuable to us and not necessarily any other team, or are Ingram and Kuzma much more valuable because the league has clearly seen their potential to provide sauce to any team? Interjecting the names "Nance Jr." Or "Clarkson" may help, for perspective - since LeBron was able to drag them with him to the Finals. And none of us (read: Kenny) wants to discuss the name "Randle", but again my point is that Lonzo hasn't yet (to me, anyway) achieved "untouchable" status, given his as-currently-compiled body of work.
In my perfect world, Lonzo (and a whole lot more) would go to the Pelicans for AD and Randle back. Are LeBron, AD, Randle, Kuzma and _______ better than anything else we could have potentially had? And, returning back to reality, does keeping Lonzo and putting anybody else up (for AD, or some other superstar and a side of fries) make us better? Are we grooming Lonzo to be . . what? LeBron's succesor in 3/4 years? Somebody explain it to me.
KobeMVP888 wrote:He's confused.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests