0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I remember the days when folks say Kyle Kuzma was better than Jayson Tatum
Too bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draft
Quote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issue
Quote from: Moranis on January 14, 2024, 08:24:40 AMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issueNo they didn't
Quote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 11:58:35 AMQuote from: Moranis on January 14, 2024, 08:24:40 AMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issueNo they didn'tSure they did. Randle was absolutely the right pick in 14. In 15 they took Russell instead of Okafor, though the Zinger would have been the better pick. There is no one else till Booker at 13 that would have been better than Dlo and no one would have taken Booker at 2. In 16 they took Ingram. I think Ingram vs. Brown is a matter of preference, and that is with Ingram getting hurt. If Ingram stayed healthy, he'd have been better. Now, perhaps Murray should have gone 2 (and that wasn't a stretch). The only other player in the entire draft you'd even consider is Sabonis but he went 11 and wasn't a realistic option at 2. 17 they obviously missed on Tatum by taking Ball, but pre-injury Ball was on track to be very good and arguably could have been better than anyone other than Tatum. Obviously, Fox, Mitchell, and Bam have all been very good, but Fox was the only guy in that group taken in the top 10.Ball over Tatum is the only really egregious draft pick and that was apparent almost immediately.
Quote from: Moranis on January 19, 2024, 01:24:05 PMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 11:58:35 AMQuote from: Moranis on January 14, 2024, 08:24:40 AMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issueNo they didn'tSure they did. Randle was absolutely the right pick in 14. In 15 they took Russell instead of Okafor, though the Zinger would have been the better pick. There is no one else till Booker at 13 that would have been better than Dlo and no one would have taken Booker at 2. In 16 they took Ingram. I think Ingram vs. Brown is a matter of preference, and that is with Ingram getting hurt. If Ingram stayed healthy, he'd have been better. Now, perhaps Murray should have gone 2 (and that wasn't a stretch). The only other player in the entire draft you'd even consider is Sabonis but he went 11 and wasn't a realistic option at 2. 17 they obviously missed on Tatum by taking Ball, but pre-injury Ball was on track to be very good and arguably could have been better than anyone other than Tatum. Obviously, Fox, Mitchell, and Bam have all been very good, but Fox was the only guy in that group taken in the top 10.Ball over Tatum is the only really egregious draft pick and that was apparent almost immediately. They should have taken jokic over randle.
Quote from: celticsclay on January 19, 2024, 01:59:08 PMQuote from: Moranis on January 19, 2024, 01:24:05 PMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 11:58:35 AMQuote from: Moranis on January 14, 2024, 08:24:40 AMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issueNo they didn'tSure they did. Randle was absolutely the right pick in 14. In 15 they took Russell instead of Okafor, though the Zinger would have been the better pick. There is no one else till Booker at 13 that would have been better than Dlo and no one would have taken Booker at 2. In 16 they took Ingram. I think Ingram vs. Brown is a matter of preference, and that is with Ingram getting hurt. If Ingram stayed healthy, he'd have been better. Now, perhaps Murray should have gone 2 (and that wasn't a stretch). The only other player in the entire draft you'd even consider is Sabonis but he went 11 and wasn't a realistic option at 2. 17 they obviously missed on Tatum by taking Ball, but pre-injury Ball was on track to be very good and arguably could have been better than anyone other than Tatum. Obviously, Fox, Mitchell, and Bam have all been very good, but Fox was the only guy in that group taken in the top 10.Ball over Tatum is the only really egregious draft pick and that was apparent almost immediately. They should have taken jokic over randle.Since the entire NBA missed, I can't really fault their management. Let's be glad they overlooked him.
Quote from: Roy H. on January 19, 2024, 02:03:05 PMQuote from: celticsclay on January 19, 2024, 01:59:08 PMQuote from: Moranis on January 19, 2024, 01:24:05 PMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 11:58:35 AMQuote from: Moranis on January 14, 2024, 08:24:40 AMQuote from: kraidstar on January 14, 2024, 02:18:23 AMToo bad they blew their picks at the front end of the draftThey actually did relatively well at the top as well. Obviously Tatum instead of Ball would have been best pick (even before Ball injury), but they mostly picked well high. Drafting was never Lakers' issueNo they didn'tSure they did. Randle was absolutely the right pick in 14. In 15 they took Russell instead of Okafor, though the Zinger would have been the better pick. There is no one else till Booker at 13 that would have been better than Dlo and no one would have taken Booker at 2. In 16 they took Ingram. I think Ingram vs. Brown is a matter of preference, and that is with Ingram getting hurt. If Ingram stayed healthy, he'd have been better. Now, perhaps Murray should have gone 2 (and that wasn't a stretch). The only other player in the entire draft you'd even consider is Sabonis but he went 11 and wasn't a realistic option at 2. 17 they obviously missed on Tatum by taking Ball, but pre-injury Ball was on track to be very good and arguably could have been better than anyone other than Tatum. Obviously, Fox, Mitchell, and Bam have all been very good, but Fox was the only guy in that group taken in the top 10.Ball over Tatum is the only really egregious draft pick and that was apparent almost immediately. They should have taken jokic over randle.Since the entire NBA missed, I can't really fault their management. Let's be glad they overlooked him.Yeah, you can't look back on a draft and say a 2nd round pick should have gone 1 and the team drafting at 1 failed as a result. There has to be a realistic look back on things. Now if you are just doing a redraft, sure you put Jokic at 1, but that doesn't the teams in the lottery failed because Jokic hit it big.