my point is, everyone will look like a basketball dummy compared to Magic or Kidd. We all know Randle isn't that player. Why even bring them up in that context? Ever heard of Michael Jordan abeer? /sarcasm I laid out a few reasons claiming why Randles isn't as dumb as you say he is. Your response boils down to - eye test. I don't see Randle as a smart player, therefore he's not. I beg to differ.
You're confusing basketball feel/instincts with intelligence. Basketball IQ can be developed, just like any other on-court skill. Julius is a smart person, a hard worker, and a student of the game. He can develop a good basketball IQ with experience and repetition.
i think my initial post was stating quite the opposite. and i suppose the debate is about the extent to which hoop iq can be developed.
must have missed the empirical evidence you provided--as opposed to the eye test, which you just dismissed as sophomoric. do we need to go to video compilations of randle making poor basketball reads? or just point to other players on the same team, playing the same position like larry nance, who is a less skilled player, but manages to find himself in better positions to score, help others score, and stop the other team from scoring on a regular basis? in the end, though, it doesn't seem like anyone is trying to claim that randle is a smart basketball player, so i'm not sure what the argument is about.
Randle's not instinctive...doesn't mean he can't learn. At this point, everything has to fall right in line for him to execute a play.
I'm still stuck on Magic not being an intelligent person. I don't see how someone builds a multimillion dollar empire in Los Angeles without intelligence. I remember his interviews and how he was a player, but that was over 20 years ago now. He's an industrialist who surrounds himself with good, smart people in order to improve. Isn't that what Dr. Buss did? Outside of Magic's Twitter, I'm not sure one can question the man's intelligence and he's hardly dim by Twitter standards that's for sure.
Okay, I'm not dismissing the eye test, just suggesting that there is more to the story. I know there is concrete evidence showing Randle having major lapses in games, especially on defense. Won't disagree with you there. I quoted realdeal (especially the bit about the Woj interview) and commented on some of the reasons why he has those lapses - and I don't think it's solely from a lack of basketball iq. He's probably being asked to do things on the NBA level (probably for the first time) that he wasn't even doing in high school. I think that counts for something when you're looking at Randle's development
Yeah; the majority of basketball players probably are of average intelligence and above average BBIQ (or average by NBA standards).
I'm keeping an eye on this thread. I don't want to have to hand out warnings if it gets chippy in here.
BBIQ now seems a bit muddy as a concept. Is it equal to "making the smart basketball play"? If so, there are some problems. Because if you have a wide open shot and you can shoot, you take the shot; if you have a wide open shot and can't shoot, you perhaps find a teammate. If it's simply, "being able to do things to win games, regardless of talent," I don't know. Sounds pretty vague. Randle has very good physical skills overall. I question some of his fundamentals of basketball, and I question his decision-making. I don't question his heart though. I do question the combination of a) what his ceiling is and b) his ability to get there. That's why I'm hoping someone will take him off our hands and see him as a gem - and give us a lot in return.
I'm one of the bigger Randle fans here but I tend to agree with you TRodgers. I don't question his heart either, and I think he's going to be a really good player. I just wonder if he's going to fit here given lack of a jump shot and defensive inattentiveness at times. He's a really strong natural talent and he's improved in almost all of his weaknesses, even if a couple of them are baby steps (right hand, help D). He's also responded well to Walton's offensive role for him by giving him a focus to move the ball and push up court after rebounds. His assists have doubled since last year. So he's not necessarily a BAD fit here for the future. But not sure he's ideal. If the right deal emerged I'd be willing to move Randle and Clarkson. No way I'd move Ingram or Zubac. They are two way players with nice upside who fit the team concept really well. But as Zu emerges as a low post go to player, I don't see how Randle fits that well around him since he can't or won't shoot from outside. We're going to need to stretch the floor better. Nance won't shoot outside either seemingly.
btw, to be clear: i like randle. he's easy to root for, imo. i just worry (and have been worried for some time) about his ability to play within a team concept on both ends. and this isn't saying i think he's selfish (i don't think so, actually); it's simply that he lacks some basic ability to read and react at the speed the nba game requires. he's at his best when he's dictating action, but there's only a few guys who are good enough to dictate action at all times (e.g., lebron). i hope he starts to figure out how to play when the ball's not in his (or his man's) hands. i just haven't seen a lot of encouraging signs there.
Totally agree with everything you wrote here, abeer3. It is a real concern. I haven't given up on him. But at some point you start wondering is it just the lack of experience (only a one year college player and only playing NBA ball for a season and a half), or is it something he simply won't get? I think the jury is still out. Maybe they give him one more full season to see? But if there's a great deal including Randle I could also see them pulling the trigger on a trade.
I can also be clear: I like Julius as far as knowing he IS a tremendous kid. I just don't think he will be good enough at basketball for most fans to appreciate him. He is IMO a below average basketball talent in an above average basketball body. I know for myself that my expectations for him are higher than what is realistically going to be the outcome of his career.
Many have not noticed, but Julius has improved his jump shot immensely. 2015-16 2016-17 Julius likes to operate (and is most effective) in the high to mid post area, so I think he'll be an ideal fit next to Zubac. His driving and passing ability would also help develop a devastating front court for opponents. FYI D'Angelo is shooting 35.2% from the area where Julius is shooting 44.3%. And D'Angelo is equally as inconsistent. (although with D'Angelo it's more about effort/focus and not awareness) So why is Julius being singled out? It seems to me Julius is quickly becoming the scapegoat here. Given how much he's improved in 1 offseason, imagine what a beast he'd be by age 25. Trading him would be a huge mistake. Julius is the type of player that you could never replace.
Agree... One story I'll always remember about Johnson's post NBA life was when he met a well known businessman. The individual's name I don't remember but he was frequent at Laker games in the 1980's. At their meeting, Johnson was asked what was the first section he would look at when he received the newspaper. When told it was the Sports section, he was immediately lectured that it should be the business section... Johnson stated that he felt humbled AND inadequate so he took it from there to learn.
Julius in 2017: At the rim: 63.3% (140/221) 3-10 feet: 34.6% (55/159) 10-16 feet: 51.4% (19/37) 16-3pt line: 39.1% (18/46) 3pt line: 21.7% (5/23) Julius in 2016: At the rim: 56.8% (225/396) 3-10 feet: 36.2% (75/207) 10-16 feet: 22.7% (15/66) 16- 3pt line: 25.4% (33/130) 3pt line: 27.8% (10/36) He has improved in some areas, but not the ones people expected like the 3-10 range and the 3pt range. If you want to put Russell in this: 2017: At the rim: 55.7% (34/61) 3-10 feet: 47.4% (37/78) 10-16 feet: 35.6% (26/73) 16-3pt line: 36.9% (24/65) 3pt line: 33.8% (74/219) 2016: At the rim: 58.6% (106/181) 3-10 feet: 46.3% (57/123) 10-16 feet: 34.1% (47/138) 16-3pt line: 36.1% (52/144) 3pt line: 35.1% (130/370) The only significant difference is the 3pt line, but it's not really that different. I'm not sure I would characterize it as growth, but I wouldn't characterize it as regression either. I think both players are scapegoats to different crowds.
