D'Angelo Russell Discussion: Adopting A Professional Attitude

I'd say Parker and Kyrie are Point giards from the list given. But, DLO doesn't have any of the aggressiveness and grit (I see you B.Scott) that those guards have. And for that reason alone he shouldn't be a point guard especially on a running team.

 

He appears too worried about how he looks on the court. The red flag went up when soon after his arrival he was rumored to be dating a kardashian. B. Scott was right about his lack of maturity and focus. Solid post game interviews though.

 

D'Angelo is a pure SG. It's quite obvious to me. He could still be our 2nd or 3rd playmaker as a SG. Why people have an issue with this I don't really know.

Steph and Kyrie are SG's too but they're too short to play that position. They are the definition of "SG in a PG's body." Height is not an issue with Russell so they're not even comparable. And I think Parker and Wall are natural PG's.

 

I'm playing amateur psychologist here, but I believe Ingram has less ADD than D'Angelo does. D'Angelo constantly has those moments where he loses focus. Some blame it on being too being young and immature, which may be true, but it's there nonetheless. D'Angelo's focus issues are a little better than they were last year under Scott, but they still crop up way too often. When Ingram makes a mistake, it seems that it's more of a lack of experience than a lack of concentration or preparation.

While Ingram is able to focus better on the court, he doesn't really strike me as leader of a pack. D'Angelo seems to have more of that kind of personality.

 

I guess we can leave Russell at PG and have Ingram bring the ball up and run the offense as a point forward.

 

the offense generally has looked better with russell at the reins than anyone else.

now, if an allstar caliber pg just fell in the lakers' lap via trade/draft/FA, then i'd consider trying russell at sg, but not now.

again, you have to play both ends, and russell would have trouble with many of the league's sgs (think evan fournier on that end). also, his size advantage, which he uses both in the post and to get clear for midrange shots, would be gone.

if russell's not a pg, he's a bench player. and that's bad.

 

At this point I think the question mark is more on his will to become as good as he could be than his position

 

his coach seems to think he's doing well at pg.

i just don't see how russell is drawing the fan ire. we should be mad at the collective almost historically poor defense, not at a 20 year old second year player who's been the best player on the team, imo.

 

I think his assistant to turnover ratio has been better; his rebounding seems to have gotten better, additionally.

I seen a fan mention this on LG: starting Ingram. He'll be another facilitator and we can use Russell in more off ball actions.

 

right, but for defensive purposes and many offensive purposes, russ would still be the pg. asking ingram to bring the ball up against pressure each possession could get ugly. i believe that in luke's ideal offense, the creating/distributing is, well, distributed. like gs. but curry's still the pg there.

 

Absolutely. Although, I wouldn't ask Ingram to bring the ball up every possession.

He can be used to facilitate at times while we use Russell in different actions; mostly off screens where he can catch and shoot, and he's much more effective, IMO.

 

Walton still motivating DLO with positive reinforcement.

Walton doesn't want Russell to be gun-shy

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/los-angeles-times/20170115/282273845060657

 

i'd argue that's because ingram doing that is a) still sort of a change-up and b) largely against second line players.

russell has made plenty of fantastic passes this year, and many other very heady passes that aren't flashy (lots of good skips, for instance). the problem is that his teammates really aren't great finishers; plus, the paint is crazy clogged at almost all times because none of the pfs on the team are threats to bomb from the perimeter. i suppose ingram would have the advantage that the team's best shooter (russell) was actually out there making defenses concerned, though!

i don't like russell's attitude or lapses in focus, either, but i think we're going a little overboard in terms of evaluating his strengths and weaknesses, both in absolute and relative terms.

 

-If you really watch Russell, he does most things pretty nondescript. Nothing really stands out,DExcept for a handful of hot shooting games here and there. There haven't been many flashes or "stand out" moments where you see what he can really become or why he was drafted as high as he was. You keep waiting and waiting but thus far it just hasn't come.

-He lacks speed and explosion and it's very obvious he simply most times cannot get by his defender without help of a pick, and sometimes not even with that. He's extremely flat footed and it becomes very glaring on the defensive end. He becomes lost and then lazy on both ends, and it becomes frustrating to watch. Then in the post-game interviews he'll say all the right things per usual, but next game it's the same story over and over.

-But then someone will post his 36 min stats and so forth to show his potential or to qualm unrest. Fact is, that's all fine and well, but at some point he needs to get it together and produce. It gets tiring to watch him dribble up the court, pass it away, then stand there and point.. Then absolutely nothing most times. He never takes charge, never takes hold of a possession or a game when it's necessary. He gets disinterested, turns it over, becomes invisible and never reappears again. Sure he's only in his second season, but that doesn't change any of the above.

-I've seen so much more progress and promise in Ingram thus far. You would think that would motivate or cultivate Russell to push his own game limits, but that hasn't happened, and the organization has taken some notice of that. Everyone wants him succeed, but it has to begin with him.

 

Worst case scenario with Russell: he's a trade asset.