Brandon Ingram Discussion: He Is Who We Thought He Could Be

Kawhi was a last minute play... it was a serious effort, but in hindsight the Clippers had the clear edge

2 elite stars was not a pipe dream in my opinion. Once we picked LBJ, we seriously limited the available 2nd options, although I get why you take a risk on LBJ. I don't believe we couldn't have gone successfully in another direction.

If we go with PG instead of LBJ... we have a lesser player but more options for the second elite.

I think AD's a great player but hasn't shown the ability to lead a team by himself. His likeability is relevant to this discussion because unlike LBJ or Kobe, I think more alpha player will jump at the chance to team with him.

 

Those 3 above in your last post .... WTF?

Not more options. I believe your hyperbolic statement a couple weeks ago was you could think of a hundred combinations of 2 stars we could have gotten or gone after other than Lebron and AD when no one had given us a sniff in 7 years. And Paula decided he had a new BFF in Westbrook until he admitted on the catamaran in Hawaii recently that he always wanted to play instead with Leonard.

Not that he is unquestionably one of the top players in the game today who hasn't even reached his prime years yet. Your quote was his likability was his best attribute.

 

I have 2 questions to you, not trying to be sarcastic or anything but just to understand your position:
1. Could you elaborate on that alternative scenario? How could the Lakers have landed PD and then added 2 stars?
2. Who are the players currently in the NBA who have shown the ability to lead a team by themselves?

 

In response to LT

1. Something can be last minute and serious at the same time... my criticism is that it wasn't a game planned over the course of the season like the Clippers effort

2. I never said we could have gotten a hundred combinations... I said if you took the ten to twelve elites... you could come up with a hundred different scenarios... of which some might have come to fruition. My point was that something could be made to work.

3. I think AD is an important player, but I don't hold him quite at the esteem that most of you do. If he ever wins regularly without LBJ, that opinion might change. His likeability is important to me because he can be combined with a second elite more easily. If he wasn't likeable... then he wouldn't be a good player to build around imo

To Samson

1. I think combining with PG and any of the second elites plus the core would have been the better outcome.

2. LBJ, Kawhi, Giannis, Harden, Doncic, Jokic, healthy KD have shown more ability to lead a team to success by themselves

 

i'm the world's biggest doncic fan, but the mavs were dismal last year and might miss the playoffs this year, too.

kd tore his achilles.

harden has done jack squat without a second superstar on his team.

jokic and giannis had davis-like results as lone stars until last year. giannis plays in the east (can't stress this enough), and jokic's team narrowly escaped one playoff upset before getting smacked by a lower seed in the second round.

at best, you named the 6 or 7 players that someone *might* put ahead of davis. none of whom are available in trade, one of whom is already on our team.

and this is in a thread about how you wanted two guys not on that list instead of AD (who's as good as those guys) and lebron (who's on your list).

really have no idea what you're driving at most of the time.

 

As regards Pt. 2 - abeer3 pretty much summed up my point of view.

And you didn't answer my 1st question. It wasn't if PG plus any of the "second elites" would be better than what we have now. It was how the Lakers could have landed PG and then added 2 stars, with "how" being the crucial part of my question. How could the Lakers have landed PG while keeping the core? IMO it was not possible, but you seem very confident about it, please enlighten me.

 

I always wanted 2 stars plus the kids.

I only wanted the 3 stars after we traded for AD... as a healthy Kawhi and AD would be an amazing core to build around.

So my ideal scenarios were two stars plus the best of our core and keeping our picks.

OR... once we executed the trade... acquiring Kawhi to pair with AD... looking to the future. I'm not sure if AD/LBJ/Kawhi would even work with minimum players and load management... but I wanted Kawhi at the time to take over for LBJ.

So maybe the confusion is I'm speaking about two different points in our recent history.

 

I get it. You have a preferred scenario and it doesn't matter if it's realistic or not. Now that you menion it, why don't we have Doncic, Giannis and Jokic on the team? That would be much better than not having them . I'm on bord with not approving on the AD trade now, it's clear we could have done a lot better .

 

Except they weren't unrealistic. I truly believed we could have acquired PG first had we prioritized him over LBJ. I get why we chose LBJ because he's a superior player... but I think that would have opened more doors to us this season. Add PG to any of KD/Kawhi/Kyrie/Kemba/Jimmy/Khris/Tobias/Dlo... I'm forgetting everyone who was available... and that might be successful while keeping most of the core and our picks.

AD/LBJ/Kawhi was realistic. So why not Doncic/Giannis/Jokic? But personally I'd rather have depth and just have Doncic with any of one of Giannis/AD/Jokic.

This team we have now is very good, and I'm enjoying the winning but so many questions for me in terms of depth and sustainability.

I don't know why you all feel the need to mock a differing opinion. It's fine just to say you disagree instead of collectively questioning my sanity.

Personally, I don't mind as I can see most of you are serious fans and not trolls and my skin is as thick as an elephant's... however, I wonder how many people have been discouraged from participating here if they happen to disagree with you all.

 

If my post came across as mocking, I apologize. I am sure I can speak on behalf of most of our members when I say you are more than welcome on this board. That being said...

You have AGAIN written a few paragraphs of your dream scenarious while completely ignoring my question. Had you described these in a thread about the player we wish could be on the Lakers, nobody would argue. However, if you present these as a potential alternative to what we have now, it begs the question how it could have been accomplished. So I am asking you again - make it easier for me to get your point of view by explaining it in a little more detail.

 

No Samson, my post was directed at everyone not just you... but thanks for your kind words.

I truly don't mind the banter... but I think others more sensitive might... just thinking out loud was all. This board is good, but it needs more people.

Without writing a Sliding Doors/Looper like screenplay of an alternate universe, a lot of what I feel was possible is contingent on whether you believe PG would have come. If you don't think PG was an achievable target then I get the skepticism of everything I've written on the subject. I think once LBJ became Magic and Rob's target ( or more likely he chose them) then many things I've written became moot. So I think that's where I lose a lot of you.
PG opens up any of those names I've listed... LBJ closes most of them and only allowed for AD. Don't get me wrong... it's a very good only option to have... but as has been discussed ad nauseam... one that has a very short window.

 

Dang, I wasn't looking!

 

Ok, I give up . PG was not coming. The Lakers tried to get him but Indiana wanted the house. After his contract was up, he didn't want to come because his feelings got hurt when the Lakers hadn't gutted the team to get him. In other words, we could maybe have had him, but definitely not him and the kiddies. Your alternative scenario is unrealistic. Enjoy the ride, we're really good.

 

right. there was basically no plausible scenario where we get george without losing ingram. indy wasn't taking our offer. it might have even taken ingram and the #2 (ingram's stock was low).

and as i outlined earlier, basically no PG combination beats lebron/AD. and AD is 26, not 1000, as some seem to indicate.

 

BI looks great. Just another great outing.

 

BI averaging 25.3 PPG at 60.6 TS% at the age of 22
AD averaged 24.4 PPG at 55.9 TS% at the age of 22

Yet I've been told Ingram will never be close to AD on this board.

Defensively sure... offensively it's a different story.

 

Well the gap on the defensive end is so damn astronomical the minute differences on offense doesn't change a thing. They're not even close. AD was already viewed as a generational talent at 22. Let's see Ingram play a full season before making any conclusions.

 

The defensive gap is pretty astronomical but Ingram's ability to create and iso score is developing a significant gap in the other direction.

I agree it's still early days and we don't know how his play will integrate with Zion's... obviously that type of production won't continue when he returns but then again AD never had to deal with becoming the second option in New Orleans.

He's up to 35 games at 25PPG with elite efficiency. 25 games more and then he pretty much sustained it for the length of time that AD did it when he was 22. Keep in mind that AD is a way better athlete and scores a lot from his athleticism in the same way Dwight did. If Ingram manages to gain significant weight and strength he might add a dimension to his game, especially if he can finish at the elite efficiency of Giannis and AD.

So yeah, BI can't be compared to KD and AD who excelled from their rookie season, but it doesn't look like he's reached his ceiling either.

If Zion's health problems aren't chronic, one could say that they will probably become the dominant duo of the twenties.

 

Significant gap on offense? How so? AD currently scores more than Ingram on a contender, and he's been a Top 10 scorer in the league for like 6 straight years now. We need to see more evidence from Ingram.

Again, that's a lot of if's. I don't see Ingram gaining a lot of weight. That happens earlier (usually by 3rd year) in an athlete's career.

And don't dismiss the insane season when AD had a PER of 30.8 at 21 years old, leading his team to the playoffs. His production dipped a bit the next season (at 22, where you're basing your comparisons) but that's what fatigue can do...being a leader of a franchise and playing high intensity basketball on both ends. Ingram is a stud no doubt, but 35 games of ISO ball doesn't place him anywhere in the vicinity of Anthony Davis.