We discussed the whole "Russell struggles against athletic defenders" thing in another thread (or maybe even this one). Like Okafor's poor defense, etc, its being overblown. Russell had great games against a number of teams that play great defense. Michigan State, Michigan, Maryland, Indiana, VCU are just the ones that immediately come to mind. He put up his numbers in the Big 10, not the Sun Belt (no disrespect). He put up great numbers playing against great athletes all season and that's why those of us who actually watched him play in multiple games are high on him. He averaged 19.3 pts, 5.7 rebounds, and 5 assists in the Big Ten. He did great against tough competition. People just keep acting as if guys who can shoot and pass like Russell come along every day. That's just not true. He is one of the top five recruits in the class and he pretty clearly earned it on the floor.
i just haven't seen anything that makes me think it's worth getting cute and taking him over one of the two centers. he seems like the obvious choice at 3, though.
I definitely get what you are saying. I was talking with one of my friends who is a reporter for the Heat a few days ago about the draft. We started talking about the top few picks and naturally Russell, Okafor, Porzingis came up. He wouldn't flat out say he would pick Russell but he reminded of the fact that Riley almost picked Chris Kaman over Dwayne Wade. Now of course we both think Okafor is a lot better than Kaman, but it is interesting to think about that and how much that would have completely changed the Heat. We then had a long discussion over how much better off some franchises might be right now if they had bucked conventional wisdom and just taken the best guy available instead of worrying about size. That's where I am pretty much at right now. Take the best guy on the board (unless it is Porzingis then you take the guy after him). I still think that will be Okafor, but Russell is very talented.
I still lean toward the bigs right now, but I get the hype on Russell. If I had to make the call it would probably be like most of the mocks with Towns, Okafor, and then Russell third.
...all that said. In Praise of Jahlil Okafor http://www.canishoopus.com/2015/6/3/8721085/in-praise-of-jahlil-okafor
I still think Okafor is a better defender than he is getting credit for, but still a solid read on his overall game. Jahlil Okafor is an elite NBA prospect on only half the court http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2015/6/...ting-report-nba-draft-2015-los-angeles-lakers
Great reads @ElginTheGreat I have no doubt Okafor will improve as a defender. If he doesn't show effort, Byron will bench him in favor of Black or Davis. Simple as that. As for expanding his range, I strongly oppose against it. He should stay in the low block where he is unstoppable. Versatility is unnecessary when you are as dominant as Okafor in one area. His free throws definitely need improvement.
Yes. I think Okafor can be a solid defender. Maybe not elite but definitely solid to good. I think people are focusing on on the Warriors this year to an extent and that's natural given the year they had. But too many are forgetting that the Spurs won it just last year, should've won the year before and were right back in the hunt this year. There is still room for a team to compete and win playing through a talented guy in the middle. I think that's a big reason we still hear that Flip Saunders prefers Okafor.
This is true, but Duncan has changed the way he plays throughout the years. He had to adjust his game to suit the current game. Unfortunately, I don't watch college ball so I haven't been partaking in these discussions, but it's weird to me that Okafor is the #1 prospect when the only thing people praise about him is his post game and size. His defense is poor. His endurance is poor. He free throw shooting is poor. Also, rookies are almost always poor defenders because of the complexities and level of play at the professional level. If he's already poor, why should I expect him to be good at an even more difficult level? Honest question - how often do we hear about an NBA prospect with poor defense and how often do they end up becoming good defenders?
Marc Gasol, Klay Thompson, Draymond Green to name a few that were scouted as weak defenders coming out of college. Now they are elite.
Both have basically the same message: Offense good. Defense bad. Still a great prospect. I think that's basically where everyone is coming from at this point. I happen to see things slightly differently, but it's all about preference. There's certainly holes in his game, but I think he's going to make an absolutely fantastic NBA player if he ends up here.
What I see from Okafor is within a year or two a kid who is completely reliable in the post as a scoring option. Like the article said, the point of an NBA offense is turn the court into a 3-on-2 or a 4-on-3 game. When you have a reliable post scorer, you command a double team. When the double comes, you kick the ball out and now you're looking at 4-on-3 with the defense scrambling to close out to shooters. When you can have one guy who commands double teams, your offense gets really easy really quickly. I know he's not going to be that guy in his rookie year on a consistent basis, but it's there. The only thing holding him back offensively is his free throw shooting. Defensively I honestly am not that concerned as much as everyone else. I think he'll be a decent defender. I'm not sure he'll ever be a rim protector, but I think he'll be alright in other defensive situations. A couple of those clips in the "only half the court" link show bad defensive principles, but it's already documented that Coach K really didn't want him defending too much. I'd venture a guess that most coaches haven't spent much time coaching him defensively. I think there's room for growth there. If we get Towns, I ain't mad. I don't know that he'll ever be the guy to command a double team in the NBA, but he's got a lot of different talents. I really want the guy that changes the complexion of the game single handedly though.
The bolded part is absolutely true. The last time I remember a post-up team winning was back in 05 when the Spurs won it. You could argue '07 maybe? Other than that, the game has changed tremendously. That's not to say I wouldn't love a post-up option. I think Okafor is more has a legitimate face-up game, fantastic footwork, and he's a great finisher. Nevertheless, we just can't solely rely on that in today's league.
@therealdeal Yeah, I don't really see the 'game-changer' aspect in Towns. Russell, Mudiay or Hezonja has more potential in that regard. Although I'd still pass on them.
Towns actually has much more potential than Okafor, though Okafor's floor is much higher. Take Bynum for example, because, that's who I think he measure's up with. Kid came out of high school with very little basketball identity, yet, we were able to turn him into a decent two way player. Before his injury, he was looking to be THE top center in the league. He was commanding double teams in the post on very simple post moves. He was, at the time, our most effective anchor. However, Bynum was never really 100% focused on basketball and we all know how that story goes. Towns already has a leg up on Bynum in terms of development. It took him late into the NCAA season to really come into form, but when he did, there is a reason why he's projected to be #1. He's got a solid jumper, basic post moves that utilize his size and athleticism, he protects the paint. And all through a fantastic Kentucky program that has produced some good players of late: Anthony Davis, Nerlens Noel, Julius Randle, Demarcus Cousins, Eric Bledsoe, Rajon Rondo, John Wall...
Duncan did add a jump shot, but the majority of his scoring still comes from the paint especially last season. http://www.poundingtherock.com/anal...33/where-is-tim-duncans-jumper-synergy-sports Also, Okafor's shot charts show that he can actually shoot a bit better than people think. I think he's got a lot of room to grow and that there is a lot more to his offensive game than people are giving him credit for.
The fact though is that in totality the Spurs aren't posting up as much as they used too; even if the Spurs go down the court and throw it into Duncan, it's not the 'bread and 'butter' of what they do anymore.
I agree with that. To be clear, I don't think Okafor will be the bread and butter of what we do. At least not right off the bat. Honestly, if he is on the floor I expect Kobe to still be the focal point out there for better and for worse. But I think Okafor has enough skill and passes well enough out of the post that we will be fine running the offense through him at some point. I know you have your doubts on him commanding a double team, but I think he will by the end of the season. I think Kobe, Clarkson, etc are going to benefit from having a real post scoring threat and vice versa. As far as the way the league is going, I think I am somewhere in the middle. The game is changing. I don't think the way Golden State and other teams play if just some kind of fad. But, I do think there is still room for teams with great post players.
The game has changed. I've said asked myself, can Okafor change the pendulum of where the league is headed? Possibly. I'm just not up for watching dumping the ball to Okafor with no ball movement, no weak-side action, no man movement, and watching him getting doubled and triple teamed. There's a difference between "integrating some semblance" of an ability, and it being a foundational element of what you do. Guys who are capable of excelling in the post didn't suddenly fall off of the face of the earth. There are several players in the league who would be making a killing under the old rules. But today, a post up is nothing more than an isolation play with a (usually) sub-par passer who has his back to his intended target and half of the court. It doesn't even achieve penetration the way that it used to, because post catches are farther out as a result of illegal defense rules. It doesn't even make sense from a gaming theory standpoint. You haven't compromised the opponent's defenses, and the "board" is cut in half while attacking with an inferior piece. You don't win like that. There's some strange romanticization about it that's deeply rooted in ideology rather than fact. The evidence simply doesn't support it. But people still hold on to the idea of it no matter what.
I get what you are saying. I don't think we will just dump the ball in to Okafor, but it's really hard to say how Byron would use him.
