Ingram

[LarBrd33]

Exactly.  It's the difference between perceiving a player to have undeniable potential (Ingram/Wiggins) and perceiving a player to have undeniable potential potential (perry/Jaylen).   The good news is, none of that matters.  Boston took Jaylen 3rd at the top of the 3rd tier of prospects.  They clearly believe in his potential to reach his potential.   I hope they are right.  I have faith. And I'm not too disappointed to see Ingram outplay him in preseason despite being a year younger.  That's partially why ingram was believed to be a higher class prospect.

I'm not getting your point. There is no such thing as "potential potentiall". 

Yes there is.  I just created it.  I speak for all of us when I say I hope Jaylen reaches his potential potential.

[LarBrd33]

Ingram highlights.  Looking good especially since it was against GSW whose big 4 all played 30+ minutes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUEQrwMG-QM

Dude has the body of a pencil.  Basically the opposite of Jaylen.  Jaylen has an NBA-ready body already.  When people talk about Ingram's ceiling they must be considering how his body will evolve as he grows up and how it will impact his game (which is already arguably better than Jaylen)

Unless my eyes deceive me, that's KD that Ingram is getting the tip in offense rebound over at 0:40.  Ingram is lanky but he's stronger than he looks.  He was forced to play PF at Duke and generally did a good job even though he routinely was giving up 20+ lbs.  He already uses his length very well.

It's like you're the Tony Mazz as lbbrd is to Felger. But seriously, wasn't lbbrd the one who said he wouldn't be surprised if jaylen started in the d-league. Now he's shooting a better fg% than Ingram, but jaylens preseason performance sucks. Makes sense

Only Jerebko was worse than Jaylen in preseason.  I never said he'd start in D-League.  I said I wouldn't be surprised if he spent time in D-League.  I still wouldn't. 

Still, there were definitely signs Jaylen might reach his potential potential.

[tazzmaniac]

FWIW,

About even, but Ingram has been slightly better than Jaylen in preseason.  He has the higher EFF rating (8.4 to 7.5).  Comes down to better three point shooting and less turnovers. 

Ingram:  8.1 points, 2.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.1 blocks, 0.7 steals, 0.3 turnovers with 41%/39%/54% shooting in 24mpg.

Brown:  10.7 points, 2.8 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.4 blocks, 1 steal, 1.7 turnovers, 42%/28%/59% in 23.3mpg

Ingram is 11 months younger.  He's widely believed to have a high ceiling.   While Jaylen wasn't widely believed to have a high ceiling, Boston clear thought otherwise.  Hopefully they are right.

I strongly disagree on Ingram having a better preseason...

Ingram basically had 3 or 4 games to start the preseason that were absolutely trash.  Then he has one solid game, followed by one really standout game that brought up the averages.

Brown has been consistently productive, with solid performances in pretty much ever game he's played so far, despite the fact that he's been something like the 7th or 8th man for Boston.

I'll take the guy who has had 5 solid games over the guy who has had 3 trash tames, one solid game and one good game, any day.

That's why you shouldn't just go by stats sheets.  The difference in Ingram's first 5 games and last 2 games is that the Lakers finally started to run some offense through Ingram rather than just having him play off the ball.  I will point out a couple items on the stats.  Ingram's 1.1 blocks vs. 0.4 for Brown (thank those long arms) and Ingram's 0.3 turnovers vs. 1.7 turnovers for Brown.  Besides his poor shooting, the biggest knock on Brown was his extremely high turnover rate.  He's going to have to fix both of those issues to have any hope of being a star.

Tbf, I don't think CBS ran his offense with Brown as the main option. Brown just seized opportunities with it without forcing much issues.

My comments on Brown were based on his college play.  I haven't been able to see any preseason games just highlights.  I would question the "without forcing much" considering the 1.7 turnovers.  That's a pretty high number if the offense isn't being run through you.  It does sound like Brown is being aggressive which is good.  As I mentioned before, Ingram can be a bit passive.  Not Jeff Green passive!!  So its good that Walton is already challenging him.  Just really like Ingram and wanted us to get him. 

[kraidstar]

FWIW,

About even, but Ingram has been slightly better than Jaylen in preseason.  He has the higher EFF rating (8.4 to 7.5).  Comes down to better three point shooting and less turnovers. 

Ingram:  8.1 points, 2.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.1 blocks, 0.7 steals, 0.3 turnovers with 41%/39%/54% shooting in 24mpg.

Brown:  10.7 points, 2.8 rebounds, 1.4 assists, 0.4 blocks, 1 steal, 1.7 turnovers, 42%/28%/59% in 23.3mpg

Ingram is 11 months younger.  He's widely believed to have a high ceiling.   While Jaylen wasn't widely believed to have a high ceiling, Boston clear thought otherwise.  Hopefully they are right.

I strongly disagree on Ingram having a better preseason...

Ingram basically had 3 or 4 games to start the preseason that were absolutely trash.  Then he has one solid game, followed by one really standout game that brought up the averages.

Brown has been consistently productive, with solid performances in pretty much ever game he's played so far, despite the fact that he's been something like the 7th or 8th man for Boston.

I'll take the guy who has had 5 solid games over the guy who has had 3 trash tames, one solid game and one good game, any day.

That's why you shouldn't just go by stats sheets.  The difference in Ingram's first 5 games and last 2 games is that the Lakers finally started to run some offense through Ingram rather than just having him play off the ball.  I will point out a couple items on the stats.  Ingram's 1.1 blocks vs. 0.4 for Brown (thank those long arms) and Ingram's 0.3 turnovers vs. 1.7 turnovers for Brown.  Besides his poor shooting, the biggest knock on Brown was his extremely high turnover rate.  He's going to have to fix both of those issues to have any hope of being a star.

Tbf, I don't think CBS ran his offense with Brown as the main option. Brown just seized opportunities with it without forcing much issues.

My comments on Brown were based on his college play.  I haven't been able to see any preseason games just highlights.  I would question the "without forcing much" considering the 1.7 turnovers.  That's a pretty high number if the offense isn't being run through you.  It does sound like Brown is being aggressive which is good.  As I mentioned before, Ingram can be a bit passive.  Not Jeff Green passive!!  So its good that Walton is already challenging him.  Just really like Ingram and wanted us to get him.

Keep in mind the TO total was 12 over 7 games. A few were "rookie" plays that were just visibly bad ideas, testing the defense in ways that an experienced player would not. i.e. taking the ball straight at Porzingis in traffic is probably not a great idea. If he cut back on just three of those atrocious plays, that brings the average all the way down to 1.28, which is  a lot less scary.

And he'll learn not to force a couple of those tougher shots, too. His shot efficiency should also increase.

Brad will pick up on this and force him to be more disciplined.

[crimson_stallion]

Ingram highlights.  Looking good especially since it was against GSW whose big 4 all played 30+ minutes. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUEQrwMG-QM

Dude has the body of a pencil.  Basically the opposite of Jaylen.  Jaylen has an NBA-ready body already.  When people talk about Ingram's ceiling they must be considering how his body will evolve as he grows up and how it will impact his game (which is already arguably better than Jaylen)

Unless my eyes deceive me, that's KD that Ingram is getting the tip in offense rebound over at 0:40.  Ingram is lanky but he's stronger than he looks.  He was forced to play PF at Duke and generally did a good job even though he routinely was giving up 20+ lbs.  He already uses his length very well.

It's like you're the Tony Mazz as lbbrd is to Felger. But seriously, wasn't lbbrd the one who said he wouldn't be surprised if jaylen started in the d-league. Now he's shooting a better fg% than Ingram, but jaylens preseason performance sucks. Makes sense

Only Jerebko was worse than Jaylen in preseason.  I never said he'd start in D-League.  I said I wouldn't be surprised if he spent time in D-League.  I still wouldn't. 

Still, there were definitely signs Jaylen might reach his potential potential.

In what regard?

Among all Celtics in the preseason, Brown ranked third in PPG (10.7 PPG), third in SPG (1.0 SPG) and second in FTA PG (3.9).

I think that's pretty alright for a 19 year old rookie who was projected as a raw, long-term project coming out of college.

We already knew he was a quality athlete who could rebound well.

Additional things he's shown so far:
1) He's shown he can still get to the rim at an impressive rate, even against NBA talent
2) He's shown much better passing skills/instincts then I had expected
3) He's shown flashes of a midrange game that I didn't see coming
4) He's outside shooting form actually looks decent, shows potential
5) His defense looks pretty decent all things considered, some definite signs of potential there

On draft day I was a bit worried - I thought we had a raw athlete who had little actual skill to build off. 

Now I feel much better. I see a great athlete with solid BBIQ who has potential to be a solid shooter, passer, rebounder and defender. 

I see a LOT of Jimmy Butler in Brown.

[tankcity!]

My main point is look at how Jaylen performedd during summer league. Doesn't everyone think his game has gotten better since? He's better at finishing, handling, and defense. He looked really lost to me on defense during the Summer League and that was worse competition.

Second, he has played pretty early off the bench so he hasn't been necessarily been playing with scrubs for most of his minutes.

Third, I don't think using the age argument for Ingram vs. Brown is valid. They're both rookies in my eyes. And Jaylen is only a year apart from Ingram so don't get the point.

Last, because I don't think the age argument is valid, Ingram and Brown are shooting fairly similar FG%. I understand that Ingram is shooting more threes at a higher percentage, but I don't think the majority Jaylen would be this advanced at offense this early. Who knew he had a good spin move? Or the capability to make post up fades?

[tazzmaniac]

That's why you shouldn't just go by stats sheets.  The difference in Ingram's first 5 games and last 2 games is that the Lakers finally started to run some offense through Ingram rather than just having him play off the ball.  I will point out a couple items on the stats.

Firstly, Ingram is not a point guard and he's not an "alpha dog" type of personality.  He's not going to have the offense running through him, especially not when he's got guys like Russell, Randle Young and Clarkson on the roster.  He's going to have to be able to play off the ball, and his skill set (if legit) should easily allow for that given that his biggest strength is his shooting. 

Secondly, in his five games Ingram shot:

1-2 (4 points), 2 reb, 0 ast in 19 mins
2-6 (5 points), 2 reb, 0 ast in 24 mins
3-7 (7 points), 2 reb, 2 ast in 28 mins
3-6 (12 points) 0 reb, 3 ast in 26 mins
7-10 (21 points), 7 reb, 4 ast in 28 mins

There is only one game in that list that I would call a 'good' game, and that is the 5th one.  That's despite the fact that he played substantial minutes and took a significant number of shots in all of those games. 

One good game among a sea of stinkers does not an "impressive preseason" make.

Ingram's 0.3 turnovers vs. 1.7 turnovers for Brown.  Besides his poor shooting, the biggest knock on Brown was his extremely high turnover rate.  He's going to have to fix both of those issues to have any hope of being a star.

Turnovers Per Game (TOPG) and Turnover Rate (TOR) for the NBA's top 10 scorers from last season:

Steph Curry - 3.3 TOPG, 12.9% TOR
James Harden - 4.6 TOPG, 15.9% TOR
Kevin Durant - 3.5 TOPG, 13.5% TOR
Demarcus Cousins - 3.8 TOPG, 13.3% TOR
Lebron James - 3.3 TOPG, 13.2% TOR
Damian Lillard - 3.2 TOPG, 12.6% TOR
Anthony Davis - 2.0 TOPG, 8.4% TOR
Russell Westbrook - 4.3 TOPG, 16.8% TOR
DeMar Derozan - 2.2 TOPG, 9.5% TOR
Paul George - 3.3 TOPG, 13.6% TOR

There are only two guys on that list who had a turnover rate under 12.5%, so I don't see any evidence to suggest that a high turnover rate is a hindrance to somebody becoming a star.

I said that they ran some offense through him not that he was a PG.  Kind of like we ran some offense through Pierce even though Rondo was the PG.  Ingram will do fine off ball like he did at Duke.  He's just way too good to limit him to that. 

I also think your evaluation of Ingram is off.  His lateral quickness and explosiveness while not eye popping are plenty good enough.  Ingram grew up in Kinston NC playing against older, bigger, stronger players.  He was mentored by Jerry Stackhouse.  At Duke, he was forced to played PF and usually did quite well even while giving up 20+ lbs.  He has no issue with toughness.  As for leadership, he led his high school to 4 straight championships.  Even if he isn't a leader, that is not a requirement for success or even stardom in the NBA.  Coach K was effusive in his praise for Ingram and called him no-maintenance. 

Regarding Brown's turnovers, he did have a problem in college.  2.0 assists to 3.1 turnovers is worse than Bradley bad.  Stars can have a high turnover rate because they have a high usage rate and produce like stars.  But Brown isn't a star yet. 

[crimson_stallion]

I said that they ran some offense through him not that he was a PG.  Kind of like we ran some offense through Pierce even though Rondo was the PG.  Ingram will do fine off ball like he did at Duke.  He's just way too good to limit him to that. 

I understand that - what I'm saying is that Russell, Clarkson  nd Nick Young are all ball handlers chuckers/volume scorers.   

Then you have Randle - a guy who is horrendous defensively and has no three point shot, and therefore depends heavily on having a lot of offensive touches in order to be productive. 

As long as those guys are on the court, there is a limit to how much offense is going to run through Ingram.  He's likely to spend most of his time playing off the ball simply because, out of all the guys currently on that roster, he's probably the most suited to that role (as his the best catch-and-shoot guy of the lot). 

I also think your evaluation of Ingram is off.  His lateral quickness and explosiveness while not eye popping are plenty good enough.  Ingram grew up in Kinston NC playing against older, bigger, stronger players.  He was mentored by Jerry Stackhouse.  At Duke, he was forced to played PF and usually did quite well even while giving up 20+ lbs.  He has no issue with toughness. 

Ingram did quite well, you say, while giving up 20 lbs against amateur players who are less skilled and less athletic. 

In the NBA most nights he's going to be giving up 40+ lbs against guys who are more skilled, more experienced and more athletic. 

Big difference.

You say his lateral quickness and explosiveness are "good enough".  I say that at the NBA level Ingram is going to need to have athleticism that is well beyond "good enough" in order to compensate for how skinny/weak he is.

Look at the other really skinny guys who excelled in the NBA. 

* Lamar Odom had outstanding athleticism, was a great defender, and could pass/handle like a PG

* Anthony Davis is an elite athlete who is dominant (even in college) on both ends of the court

* Kevin Garnett had elite athleticism, could pass/dribble/shoot, had a great post game, and is
one of the best defenders ever to play the game

*Kevin Durant had elite athleticism, could handle and pass the ball like a guard, and rebounded like a PF

* Dwight Howard (yes, he was skinny in College) was deceptively strong and was also an elite athlete who was a dominant rebounder and defender

Ingram doesn't have close to the talent/skill combination that those guys had.  His skill level and talent level are more on par with somebody like Tayshaun Prince. 

Prince was a good shooter.  Wasn't an elite defender, but was always a quality one.  Never had "PG like" passing/dribbling skills, but was competent.  Never a great rebounder, but an above average one.  Wasn't an elite athlete, but was mobile enough.  Didn't have an "alpha dog" mentality, but a polite and quite kid and good locker room guy with high Basketball IQ.

That passage above could be "the ultimate scouts guide to Brandon Ingram", as it describes him pretty much to perfection.

If you're in the NBA and you are as skinny as Ingram is, you're gong to get killed by stronger guys.  You're going to have to offset that by being quicker then they are, which Ingram right now just isn't.  To make matters worse Ingram is going to have to put on weight in order to be able to defend NBA size, and we he does his quickness is almost certainly going to be further reduced.

People look at Ingram and they seem to think that his length and shooting ability alone will be enough to make him an NBA star. 

Do you guys know that Rudy Gay has pretty much the exact same physical measurements as Ingram? 

Rudy Gay is 6'8" with a 7'3" wingspan, he's far more athletic then Ingram, he's about40 pounds stronger, and he's easily as skilled while also having a similar laid-back personality.  He's a good player, but he's never been an All-Star. 

What does Ingram have that he doesn't?

As for leadership, he led his high school to 4 straight championships.  Even if he isn't a leader, that is not a requirement for success or even stardom in the NBA.  Coach K was effusive in his praise for Ingram and called him no-maintenance. 

Tell that to guys like Rudy Gay and Jeff Green - supremely talented prospects who never truly became stars, mostly due to their inconsistent motors and lack of leadership skills.   

Not saying Ingram is cut from the same mold, but not saying he isn't either. 

By all reports Ingram is a really nice, polite, quiet kid.  Good lockeroom guy, team-first guy.  You could say all the same things about Jeff Green.

There are also quite a few scouting reports out there that raised concerns over Ingram's inconsistent motor (especially on defense) and his general lack of "desire to win" - that he often just costs around like he's 'going through he motions'.  You could say all of those things about Jeff Green too.

Now Ingram is only 18 years old so you can't just paint him with that brush and assume he'll stay that way - but it's a concern none the less.   

Regarding Brown's turnovers, he did have a problem in college.  2.0 assists to 3.1 turnovers is worse than Bradley bad.  Stars can have a high turnover rate because they have a high usage rate and produce like stars.  But Brown isn't a star yet.

I'm aware of that. 

Ingram averaged 2.0 assists to 2.0 turnovers in college - not exactly spectacular numbers there either for a guy who's praised for his basketball IQ.

Avery Bradley averaged 2.1 assists and 1.5 turnovers in college,  so guess who else is a worse playmaker then Avery Bradley?

Yep, Brendan Ingram is!

[MJohnnyboy]

Just to clarify crim, Dwight Howard never went to college.

[crimson_stallion]

Just to clarify crim, Dwight Howard never went to college.

Sorry, meant high school - when he looked like this:

[celticsclay]

Exactly.  It's the difference between perceiving a player to have undeniable potential (Ingram/Wiggins) and perceiving a player to have undeniable potential potential (perry/Jaylen).   The good news is, none of that matters.  Boston took Jaylen 3rd at the top of the 3rd tier of prospects.  They clearly believe in his potential to reach his potential.   I hope they are right.  I have faith. And I'm not too disappointed to see Ingram outplay him in preseason despite being a year younger.  That's partially why ingram was believed to be a higher class prospect.

I'm not getting your point. There is no such thing as "potential potentiall". 

Yes there is.  I just created it.  I speak for all of us when I say I hope Jaylen reaches his potential potential.

You all playing checkers lb playing chess. Respect the knowledge

[tazzmaniac]

I said that they ran some offense through him not that he was a PG.  Kind of like we ran some offense through Pierce even though Rondo was the PG.  Ingram will do fine off ball like he did at Duke.  He's just way too good to limit him to that. 

I understand that - what I'm saying is that Russell, Clarkson  nd Nick Young are all ball handlers chuckers/volume scorers.   

Then you have Randle - a guy who is horrendous defensively and has no three point shot, and therefore depends heavily on having a lot of offensive touches in order to be productive. 

As long as those guys are on the court, there is a limit to how much offense is going to run through Ingram.  He's likely to spend most of his time playing off the ball simply because, out of all the guys currently on that roster, he's probably the most suited to that role (as his the best catch-and-shoot guy of the lot). 

I also think your evaluation of Ingram is off.  His lateral quickness and explosiveness while not eye popping are plenty good enough.  Ingram grew up in Kinston NC playing against older, bigger, stronger players.  He was mentored by Jerry Stackhouse.  At Duke, he was forced to played PF and usually did quite well even while giving up 20+ lbs.  He has no issue with toughness. 

Ingram did quite well, you say, while giving up 20 lbs against amateur players who are less skilled and less athletic. 

In the NBA most nights he's going to be giving up 40+ lbs against guys who are more skilled, more experienced and more athletic. 

Big difference.

You say his lateral quickness and explosiveness are "good enough".  I say that at the NBA level Ingram is going to need to have athleticism that is well beyond "good enough" in order to compensate for how skinny/weak he is.

Look at the other really skinny guys who excelled in the NBA. 

* Lamar Odom had outstanding athleticism, was a great defender, and could pass/handle like a PG

* Anthony Davis is an elite athlete who is dominant (even in college) on both ends of the court

* Kevin Garnett had elite athleticism, could pass/dribble/shoot, had a great post game, and is
one of the best defenders ever to play the game

*Kevin Durant had elite athleticism, could handle and pass the ball like a guard, and rebounded like a PF

* Dwight Howard (yes, he was skinny in College) was deceptively strong and was also an elite athlete who was a dominant rebounder and defender

Ingram doesn't have close to the talent/skill combination that those guys had.  His skill level and talent level are more on par with somebody like Tayshaun Prince. 

Prince was a good shooter.  Wasn't an elite defender, but was always a quality one.  Never had "PG like" passing/dribbling skills, but was competent.  Never a great rebounder, but an above average one.  Wasn't an elite athlete, but was mobile enough.  Didn't have an "alpha dog" mentality, but a polite and quite kid and good locker room guy with high Basketball IQ.

That passage above could be "the ultimate scouts guide to Brandon Ingram", as it describes him pretty much to perfection.

If you're in the NBA and you are as skinny as Ingram is, you're gong to get killed by stronger guys.  You're going to have to offset that by being quicker then they are, which Ingram right now just isn't.  To make matters worse Ingram is going to have to put on weight in order to be able to defend NBA size, and we he does his quickness is almost certainly going to be further reduced.

People look at Ingram and they seem to think that his length and shooting ability alone will be enough to make him an NBA star. 

Do you guys know that Rudy Gay has pretty much the exact same physical measurements as Ingram? 

Rudy Gay is 6'8" with a 7'3" wingspan, he's far more athletic then Ingram, he's about40 pounds stronger, and he's easily as skilled while also having a similar laid-back personality.  He's a good player, but he's never been an All-Star. 

What does Ingram have that he doesn't?

As for leadership, he led his high school to 4 straight championships.  Even if he isn't a leader, that is not a requirement for success or even stardom in the NBA.  Coach K was effusive in his praise for Ingram and called him no-maintenance. 

Tell that to guys like Rudy Gay and Jeff Green - supremely talented prospects who never truly became stars, mostly due to their inconsistent motors and lack of leadership skills.   

Not saying Ingram is cut from the same mold, but not saying he isn't either. 

By all reports Ingram is a really nice, polite, quiet kid.  Good lockeroom guy, team-first guy.  You could say all the same things about Jeff Green.

There are also quite a few scouting reports out there that raised concerns over Ingram's inconsistent motor (especially on defense) and his general lack of "desire to win" - that he often just costs around like he's 'going through he motions'.  You could say all of those things about Jeff Green too.

Now Ingram is only 18 years old so you can't just paint him with that brush and assume he'll stay that way - but it's a concern none the less.   

Regarding Brown's turnovers, he did have a problem in college.  2.0 assists to 3.1 turnovers is worse than Bradley bad.  Stars can have a high turnover rate because they have a high usage rate and produce like stars.  But Brown isn't a star yet.

I'm aware of that. 

Ingram averaged 2.0 assists to 2.0 turnovers in college - not exactly spectacular numbers there either for a guy who's praised for his basketball IQ.

Avery Bradley averaged 2.1 assists and 1.5 turnovers in college,  so guess who else is a worse playmaker then Avery Bradley?

Yep, Brendan Ingram is!

Ingram will be playing the 2/3 not the 4 initially so he won't be giving up 40+ lbs to everyone.  He'll grow into his body and NBA strength training will help.  Let's say he doesn't.  You just play him at SG.  He's got the skillset and its a weak position.  At Duke, Ingram's defense was pretty good.  When they were playing zone, Coach K had him play at the top of the key and he was generally quite active.  One thing to remember is Duke only played 6 players.  They couldn't afford foul trouble.  They lost a couple games midseason when Ingram got in foul trouble.  Where do you come up with he has "no desire to win"?  He led his high school team to 4 championships. As you said he's a team player.  He did what coach K asked of him to win including playing PF when their starting PF was injured.  Do you think Coach K would have been so high on Ingram if Ingram didn't have a desire to win?  Is Ingram a sure thing?  Certainly not but I like his chances to be at minimum a good starter with solid star potential.   

As for comparing him to Rudy Gay, I don't remember much about young Rudy Gay so I can't make a comparison. 

[tazzmaniac]

Exactly.  It's the difference between perceiving a player to have undeniable potential (Ingram/Wiggins) and perceiving a player to have undeniable potential potential (perry/Jaylen).   The good news is, none of that matters.  Boston took Jaylen 3rd at the top of the 3rd tier of prospects.  They clearly believe in his potential to reach his potential.   I hope they are right.  I have faith. And I'm not too disappointed to see Ingram outplay him in preseason despite being a year younger.  That's partially why ingram was believed to be a higher class prospect.

I'm not getting your point. There is no such thing as "potential potentiall". 

Yes there is.  I just created it.  I speak for all of us when I say I hope Jaylen reaches his potential potential.

You all playing checkers lb playing chess. Respect the knowledge

There is such a thing as "unknown unknowns".  I figure potential potential must be some sort of 4th dimensional superstar particle.  Almost as elusive as the God particle.   

[celticsclay]

Exactly.  It's the difference between perceiving a player to have undeniable potential (Ingram/Wiggins) and perceiving a player to have undeniable potential potential (perry/Jaylen).   The good news is, none of that matters.  Boston took Jaylen 3rd at the top of the 3rd tier of prospects.  They clearly believe in his potential to reach his potential.   I hope they are right.  I have faith. And I'm not too disappointed to see Ingram outplay him in preseason despite being a year younger.  That's partially why ingram was believed to be a higher class prospect.

I'm not getting your point. There is no such thing as "potential potentiall". 

Yes there is.  I just created it.  I speak for all of us when I say I hope Jaylen reaches his potential potential.

You all playing checkers lb playing chess. Respect the knowledge

There is such a thing as "unknown unknowns".  I figure potential potential must be some sort of 4th dimensional superstar particle.  Almost as elusive as the God particle.

I believe this also

[crimson_stallion]

I said that they ran some offense through him not that he was a PG.  Kind of like we ran some offense through Pierce even though Rondo was the PG.  Ingram will do fine off ball like he did at Duke.  He's just way too good to limit him to that. 

I understand that - what I'm saying is that Russell, Clarkson  nd Nick Young are all ball handlers chuckers/volume scorers.   

Then you have Randle - a guy who is horrendous defensively and has no three point shot, and therefore depends heavily on having a lot of offensive touches in order to be productive. 

As long as those guys are on the court, there is a limit to how much offense is going to run through Ingram.  He's likely to spend most of his time playing off the ball simply because, out of all the guys currently on that roster, he's probably the most suited to that role (as his the best catch-and-shoot guy of the lot). 

I also think your evaluation of Ingram is off.  His lateral quickness and explosiveness while not eye popping are plenty good enough.  Ingram grew up in Kinston NC playing against older, bigger, stronger players.  He was mentored by Jerry Stackhouse.  At Duke, he was forced to played PF and usually did quite well even while giving up 20+ lbs.  He has no issue with toughness. 

Ingram did quite well, you say, while giving up 20 lbs against amateur players who are less skilled and less athletic. 

In the NBA most nights he's going to be giving up 40+ lbs against guys who are more skilled, more experienced and more athletic. 

Big difference.

You say his lateral quickness and explosiveness are "good enough".  I say that at the NBA level Ingram is going to need to have athleticism that is well beyond "good enough" in order to compensate for how skinny/weak he is.

Look at the other really skinny guys who excelled in the NBA. 

* Lamar Odom had outstanding athleticism, was a great defender, and could pass/handle like a PG

* Anthony Davis is an elite athlete who is dominant (even in college) on both ends of the court

* Kevin Garnett had elite athleticism, could pass/dribble/shoot, had a great post game, and is
one of the best defenders ever to play the game

*Kevin Durant had elite athleticism, could handle and pass the ball like a guard, and rebounded like a PF

* Dwight Howard (yes, he was skinny in College) was deceptively strong and was also an elite athlete who was a dominant rebounder and defender

Ingram doesn't have close to the talent/skill combination that those guys had.  His skill level and talent level are more on par with somebody like Tayshaun Prince. 

Prince was a good shooter.  Wasn't an elite defender, but was always a quality one.  Never had "PG like" passing/dribbling skills, but was competent.  Never a great rebounder, but an above average one.  Wasn't an elite athlete, but was mobile enough.  Didn't have an "alpha dog" mentality, but a polite and quite kid and good locker room guy with high Basketball IQ.

That passage above could be "the ultimate scouts guide to Brandon Ingram", as it describes him pretty much to perfection.

If you're in the NBA and you are as skinny as Ingram is, you're gong to get killed by stronger guys.  You're going to have to offset that by being quicker then they are, which Ingram right now just isn't.  To make matters worse Ingram is going to have to put on weight in order to be able to defend NBA size, and we he does his quickness is almost certainly going to be further reduced.

People look at Ingram and they seem to think that his length and shooting ability alone will be enough to make him an NBA star. 

Do you guys know that Rudy Gay has pretty much the exact same physical measurements as Ingram? 

Rudy Gay is 6'8" with a 7'3" wingspan, he's far more athletic then Ingram, he's about40 pounds stronger, and he's easily as skilled while also having a similar laid-back personality.  He's a good player, but he's never been an All-Star. 

What does Ingram have that he doesn't?

As for leadership, he led his high school to 4 straight championships.  Even if he isn't a leader, that is not a requirement for success or even stardom in the NBA.  Coach K was effusive in his praise for Ingram and called him no-maintenance. 

Tell that to guys like Rudy Gay and Jeff Green - supremely talented prospects who never truly became stars, mostly due to their inconsistent motors and lack of leadership skills.   

Not saying Ingram is cut from the same mold, but not saying he isn't either. 

By all reports Ingram is a really nice, polite, quiet kid.  Good lockeroom guy, team-first guy.  You could say all the same things about Jeff Green.

There are also quite a few scouting reports out there that raised concerns over Ingram's inconsistent motor (especially on defense) and his general lack of "desire to win" - that he often just costs around like he's 'going through he motions'.  You could say all of those things about Jeff Green too.

Now Ingram is only 18 years old so you can't just paint him with that brush and assume he'll stay that way - but it's a concern none the less.   

Regarding Brown's turnovers, he did have a problem in college.  2.0 assists to 3.1 turnovers is worse than Bradley bad.  Stars can have a high turnover rate because they have a high usage rate and produce like stars.  But Brown isn't a star yet.

I'm aware of that. 

Ingram averaged 2.0 assists to 2.0 turnovers in college - not exactly spectacular numbers there either for a guy who's praised for his basketball IQ.

Avery Bradley averaged 2.1 assists and 1.5 turnovers in college,  so guess who else is a worse playmaker then Avery Bradley?

Yep, Brendan Ingram is!

Ingram will be playing the 2/3 not the 4 initially so he won't be giving up 40+ lbs to everyone.  He'll grow into his body and NBA strength training will help.  Let's say he doesn't.  You just play him at SG.  He's got the skillset and its a weak position.  At Duke, Ingram's defense was pretty good.  When they were playing zone, Coach K had him play at the top of the key and he was generally quite active.  One thing to remember is Duke only played 6 players.  They couldn't afford foul trouble.  They lost a couple games midseason when Ingram got in foul trouble.  Where do you come up with he has "no desire to win"?  He led his high school team to 4 championships. As you said he's a team player.  He did what coach K asked of him to win including playing PF when their starting PF was injured.  Do you think Coach K would have been so high on Ingram if Ingram didn't have a desire to win?  Is Ingram a sure thing?  Certainly not but I like his chances to be at minimum a good starter with solid star potential.   

As for comparing him to Rudy Gay, I don't remember much about young Rudy Gay so I can't make a comparison.

Ingram cannot play SG...he has nowhere near the quickness or the ball handling capabilities to play the SG spot. 

At the NBA level he's going to be a SF/PF, and if he's trying to go up against 200 pound SG's they will blow by him like he's standing still.