Just hit me about the Ingram and PG playing the same position. Ingram is a kid. And by the time he hits his ceiling or enter his prime, PG would be 32, give or take 1 year. Ingram would be just about ready to take over if he'll have what it takes. Harden played a lot of bench time as a great 6th man before becoming what he is a now. So Ingram can have that route. He is young. Unless we are expecting a LeBron like big splash performance from him. Coaching staff can play around the rotation anyway and have him and PG play together at some stretches with either playing 4. --- I've heard a lot of strong buzz before about players coming to the team and I'm telling you, this is one of those where almost everyone if not everyone in the media are decidedly convinced it's gonna happen and I mean this year and it's extremely helpful in fending off other possibilities. Everybody's just sh*tting on the Pacers. You've gotta feel bad for them. Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
Heck there will be times when PG and BI are in for Ball or Russell. Foul troubles no problem. More than enough minutes to go around and Luke gets them to buy in anyway. They have to.
I was questioning the merits of acquiring George next year IF we knew for certain that Ingram would be our franchise player. I get that having too much talent at one position is a good problem to have. But as I said, it's not all roses. The best lineup could end up (very likely imo) being one that involves benching Ingram for a few years, hampering his growth. Again, we can always flip George for another asset if it doesn't work, but I'm just saying both George and Ingram are clearly best at SF, and playing them at SG or PF would not maximize their production. In fact, the hypothetical of having two star 6'9" SF's as starters has been discussed numerous times, but when's the last time that's actually worked? Any championship teams?
Those lineups are only temporary. At some point redundancy becomes detrimental. You think the Warriors would trade Curry and Klay for 2 Paul George's for example?
Okay. After the embarrassing loss of the C Bags against the Cavaliers tonight, I don't think Ainge will have the nerve to face George and pitch a "one star away from contending" speech for a one year rental let alone a verbal agreement of extension. C Bags are humiliated. Hah... The only team that has truly challenged the Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference playoffs is the Pacers with all four games boiling down to the last minute every time. Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
You do realize they'll have to go through the other superteam first. Playoffs is out of question. They'll make it there, guaranteed! Sent from my E6533 using Tapatalk
Ingram can play the 2. PG13, despite what he wants, can play the 4 in a small ball lineup (or we just tell him Ingram is playing the 4, but he's guarding the PF. HA HA) There are more than enough minutes to go around for Ball, Russell, Ingram, PG13, and Zu to make their presence felt on the game.
The pf position is actually not like it used to be. It's not a power player with a post game anymore it's usually a stretch 4 or someone that isn't that strong. I think George or Ingram can handle that spot easily. Actually are defense would be dynamic with those 2
Sure Ingram can play the 2. He can also play the 1,4 or 5. Doesn't mean he's as productive as playing the 3. Just like Russell is better as a 2 than a 1, playing out of a natural position has it's demerits. Sometimes to the point where playing an inferior player may be beneficial for the team. Although it seems like a trend, I've never been a fan of playing players out of position, or roles that they are not comfortable in. I think I was one of the first on this board to recognize Russell to be better utilized off the ball as a 2, and most people disagreed. I feel the same about playing Ingram as a 2 or 4. I don't think Ingram would be better than Russell as a 2, or Randle/Nance as a 4, so if it came down to that, I would bench him.
Come home Paul. No more of this s*** every year from one kind of weather disaster to the next. Earthquakes here, yeah, every 20 - 30 years. State of emergency declared in Indiana county due to flash flooding http://abcnews.go.com/US/state-emer...a-county-due-flash-flooding/story?id=47526049
Uhhhh that ~5 year drought, yearly wild fires, this past winter's crazy rain storm... the traffic lol. Come home anyways!
i'm not sure this is fully true. most starting pfs on good teams are still strong dudes. you don't see ingram types at the 4. even dantoni plays ryan anderson there, who's pretty stout. you haven't seen people do much of what dantoni did in phx with marion as a starting 4. you do see a lot of teams playing sfs as backup pfs. the mavs started playing harrison barnes as a starting 4 for the latter half of the season, but i think he said it was tough to do full-time. long story short, i don't think the reality matches the narrative. i could make analogous case for centers. the theory of the stretch center is quite old and has not come to fruition in any real way, just in isolated and rare situations. i agree with the general sentiment, but i still disagree that russell's not a pg. if he's not, 60% of the league's starting pgs aren't. so it's not important. if the lakers do draft and keep ball, russell will still have to do a lot of the half-court ballhandling for the lakers.
I'm sure I'll get burned at the stake for the mere mention of this possibility. It's the darkhorse scenario that I don't think I've seen anyone discuss thus far despite it making a ton of sense to me. We deal for the #1, use 1 pick to get PG, the other to get Lonzo. Here comes the sacrilege... BI to Boston. I know, I know, I love the kid too. I hate the idea of watching him become a Superstar, especially there. But I could see both teams pulling the trigger. Boston was sick when we snatched BI. They are absolutely sold on him as a future Star(as am I) & he's less of a gamble to be a contributor on a contender than anyone who hasn't ever played a NBA game. For us I think Magic & co. see it like this: Swap out a potential future Superstar who is likely atleast a few years away from really finding his way for a young yet already established Superstar at the same position, making us more attractive to big FA's in the offseasons ahead. I also believe they see Lonzo as too big of a potential payday to not go for it. The LA kid with all the hype in the world. His star power far exceeds what he's done on the court thanks to the polaraizing marketing campaign Lavar has lead. If by some freak chance he comes close to the hype, he's going to be worshipped in LA like LeBron in Cleveland.
So in your scenario we trade Ingram for the #1 pick... then use the pick to get George... That doesn't make much sense.
