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

The team is at 24 wins probably gonna finish with at least 25. That will have been almost a 10 game improvement from last year. Who's to say they don't improve another 10? I'd say that's a likely scenario given how a guy like Ingram is clearly on the rise and is gonna scratching the surface of what he'll be.

 

He has said he grew up a clipper fan

 

Minn has 2 big prime players in kat and wiggins, they barely cracked 30wins.

 

What does Minnesota have to do with the Lakers?

 

As an example to go by....who do we have now thats as good as kat?

 

Okay so we probably don't have someone as good as KAT.

We argurably have more depth though with our young players.

We have Ingram, Russell, Randle, Clarkson, Nance Jr, and of course the big fella Zubac.

Our young guys will continue to develop and mature. I'm sure the same is true for KAT and Wiggins, but considering they've already made a jump to 24 wins which is a 7 game improvement and considering this is really their first year together because of the whole Kobe farewell tour and Ingram was still at Duke I don't see why it's so hard to imagine them making another big jump next season.

Every team. Every situation is different. Maybe Thibbs isn't the right coach for them. Maybe those guys don't have enough help around them or go exist. I don't know. All I know is what I've seen from these Lakers.

 

I hope so but i cant stand another season next yr like these past 3 yrs...if there's a chance to get pg this off season w/o giving up to much you have to do it...not saying he cures everything but it would excelurate process alot faster

 

re: minny: i think thibs thinks he's playing the long game (he's probably right, as he's an nba coach and i'm a psychology professor). i think they sacrificed some wins this year trying to put in his system/principles.

i'm also not positive wiggins is a stud. i like him, but he's sort of booker-ish to me in that he doesn't do a lot that isn't scoring, and he's not a transcendent scorer. towns is the bawllz for sure, though.

anyway, there's no set formula. i just want coaching staff and management on the same page--i think that's when things work well. this does NOT mean making your coach your gm, though, as that usually fails. same page, not same sentence.

i think that's how SA has worked and how i hope the lakers will work going forward.

 

I don't disagree, but I'm not giving up Russell, Ingram, big Zubac, or whoever the top 3 pick for him when they can just get him next year in free agency. Definitely willing to part with Randle, JC, and/or Nance Jr.

 

why is there always has to be a knock against Booker? I mean if Russell were avg. those #'s we'd be saying he's a sure fire star in the making, 3reb/3asst isn't bad...Wiggins I can agree with I guess, you'd think a 6 8" uber athletic wing like him could avg. more rebs that what he's doing now

 

why does there always have to be an argument propping him up? i think he's overrated. you obviously don't.

 

He probably is but we calling russell a star in the making with inferior #s here and there...seems like a double standard

 

1. you're going to need to name names if you keep insisting on everyone's homerific takes on russell.
2. inferior numbers depends on the numbers chosen as the truth. if it's ppg, your homeboy's a winner. if it's a lot of other things...he doesn't look so great.

 

Professor ? @abeer3

 

I dont need to name names you can see it in his thread with the per36 and post all star #s stuff thus meaning he'll be a "star", booker raw stats do look like dlo #s of per 36. But yes advance metrics says booker is a net negative player but dudes a 2nd yr player, i just dont get the "overrated" "empty stat" knock on him but yet dlo #s are propped up as someone who will turn into a star, i mean yes we are LAKERS fan not Suns fans

 

so you're naming lavarball's dad and rodg?

and you're not making a strong case: you'll grant he's a net negative, and in the very next sentence wonder why people would suggest he's overrated?

we are lakers fans, and we're on a forum where some fans (i'll name you, for example) want to tell us about the greatness of a guy on another team (who looks about as effective as our guy in terms of actually impacting games)--many times in an effort to crap on the lakers player. and you wonder why people might be quick to point out counter-arguments?

 

Well per your statement, they look similar in impact but booker is overrated and dlo is a star in the making?

 

they look similar in impact; i project them similarly, but we bellyache incessantly about one and prop the other up.

the people on this (and other) site who post pro-russell arguments are often doing it in response to attacks or suggestions that player X (on some other team, drafted later, who's less snitchy or whatever) is vastly superior.

it's a rather odd state of affairs.