DRAFT TALK Thread: Looking Like Lonzo

He has tremendous vision and passing skills. He's very good in transition. He knows his limitations and picks his spots accordingly. And he's a very low USG PG. He's also likely to be an above average rebounder as a guard in the NBA.

 

But I listed tremendous vision and passing skills first. we can add decision-maker.

Now I'll ask Lonzo fans: what are your concerns about his game's translation to the NBA?

 

- Lack of effort on defense.
- Can't go right and pull up.
- Sense of urgency (Can also be considered "cool under pressure" but there comes a time when you have to force it and in the Kentucky game he didn't.
- I think his assist number were inflated because he had some amazing shooters at UCLA (not the case with Lakers)
- he appears to be soft spoken. Lakers want a leader and I'm not sure vets are gonna listen to a quiet 19 year old.

Having said that, I take him at 2 (and at 1 if we had the 1st). I think he's exactly what we need.

 

His shot has to be on the list of negatives. Bad FT shooter will struggle in the NBA. Look at Ingram.

 

Pretty much where I'm at. I think Lonzo has shown a sense of urgency at other times, but that game was a smudge on his record for sure. He had games against Oregon, Utah, and the first game against Kentucky where he tried to shoulder the load at the end to varying results. I think his inability to turn the corner is an underrated weakness. I'm not sure his handle is tight enough to consistently breakdown NBA defenses to get to the rim. He struggles with ball pressure.

But even despite his weaknesses, I think his strengths far outweigh them. I'm close wanting him first over Fultz although I'd gladly take Fultz too. Josh Jackson is also a kid I wouldn't be pissed at, but I can see why some people wouldn't be happy.

 

So, to be clear: you asked me what I thought he offered, and I answered. I asked about weaknesses and you punted? Come on, man!

 

Defense? Penetrating? Nothing else?

 

I rewatched this game for some film work this morning.

- Bam Adebayo might have been the best player in this game. He was a force inside and on the glass. He showed tremendous agility on the perimeter. At times the Wildcats put Adebayo on Ball on the perimeter and he held his own easily. I saw an interview where someone said Adebayo sees himself more like a 3/4 than a 4/5 and when you see that athleticism at work, I can sort of understand Adebayo's point. I still think he's more of a 4 and recent workouts say he's got a decent jumper even though he didn't show it at Kentucky.

- Ball in this game was not aggressive at all. This can be taken two ways and both ways have truth to them:
1. He made the right plays as the Wildcats threw everything they had at him in an effort to slow him down. Ball accepted defender after defender and deferred to the player who'd be in the best position to score. This was most obvious when the Wildcats switched Adebayo onto Ball and he didn't drive on him once. Instead he gave the ball into Leaf, Anigbogu, and Welsh and let them be big inside. While Ball's stats stayed relatively modest, the Bruins' lead grew and grew.
2. Ball is too risk averse. He wouldn't drive on the perimeter defenders of the Wildcats because he either was afraid of making a mistake or flat out couldn't. He may have low turnovers, but it's because he doesn't put himself out there. Is he willing to put it on the line and accept responsibility or is he LeBron?

- Ball mixes it up on the defensive glass really well. He is often found tapping the ball around to his open teammates. He wasn't afraid to box out with Adebayo even who has a good 100 pounds on him.

- Leaf is going to be an NBA player. He may be a bench guy, but he's an NBA player. Very smart, athletic, and skilled.

- Anigbogu will be an NBA player as well. Big, strong frame. He sets bone crushing screens. He likes to get after it defensively as well.

- Monk is a stud offensive player. He can really score the ball. He's tailor made to be a 6th man, Lou Williams type of guy. I like him a lot.

- Fox was mostly unimpressive as a basketball player, but very impressive as a competitor and athlete. You can easily go under on Fox and take off his driving lanes. He doesn't do anything particularly special making decisions. He didn't make a ton of mistakes either, but he wasn't really an impressive point guard, played more like a SG that could pass the ball. He makes rudimentary reads passing the ball, defensively he was a ton of energy but often was too much energy and would work himself out of position. I like him and I think he has a shot to be a good NBA player given his heart and athleticism, but he needs more work. Without that jumper, he's a liability in half court offenses because he's not a big rebounder or cutter. Fox's jumper isn't broken I don't think, but he's ridiculously inconsistent. A lot of bricks.

- When the game was on the line, Ball was more aggressive. Accepted ball pressure more. Came up with a big three, drove down the middle of the lane on Fox, a steal, a couple big rebounds all at critical times. Leaf was also very aggressive in the clutch.

- I hate Briscoe. I dislike greatly the way he plays, the attitude he has, the energy he gives off. He has a chaotic and disruptive attitude which is good sometimes, but can easily bubble and boil over the wrong way. Think Lance Stephenson, but less talented.

- Fox started off very hot driving the ball and changing the game in transition, but was much less effective in the second half. He's got a pretty decent handle and embarrassed Ball a couple times in the first half. In the second half, Ball buckled down a little more and Fox was less effective.

 

Ball says he's a good pick and roll defender. I posted a video that showed he is indeed a decent pick and roll player. The problem is UCLA didn't run much pick and roll and when they did the team design was not for the ball handler to shoot the ball. The design was to hit the roller or to find the shooters outside. I'll try to find the video. It's in this thread somewhere.