I can't help but feel that Okafor will disappoint a lot of people.
I think people saw Okafor putting up 17 and 8 last year, and they just expect that he'd come to Boston, and then come out next year (with an extra year of experience) and put up 20 and 10.
Personally, I think the opposite will more then likely happen. Okafor put up 17 and 8 last year on a Philly team that had no scoring at all. Jahlil was basically scoring option #1, #2 and #3. Then you had Ish Smith as option #4 and Covington as option #5. The ball was always Okafor's hand, and plays were being called for him constantly - and with all those touches (and his 15 or so FGA per game) he managed to put up 17 PPG.
Just for the record - Avery Bradley averaged 15 PPG in 2013/14 in 30 MPG (about the same Okafor played) when the Celtics were the 6th worst team in the NBA...and he was still sharing the offence with Jeff Green and Jared Sullinger. So Okafor's scoring production in Philly is not nearly as standout as people have hyped it up to be.
If he came to Boston, Isaiah Thomas is still out #1 scoring option. Horford is now likely #2. Okafor would be battling with Bradley and Crowder for the #3 spot on the offence. His touches would likely be cut in half compared to what he's getting in Philly, and his FGA would likely drop from 15 a game to 10-12 at most.
Even if his scoring efficiency took a significant leap (from the 1.19 Pts Per FGA last year to 1.25 Pts Per FGA) and his attempts only dropped to 12 a game - that's still only 15 PPG that you could realistically expect from him as a Celtic...and that's pretty much your best case scenario.
Perhaps his rebounding might go up given that Horford is perimeter bound and not much of a rebounder these days, so maybe as a best case he gives you 15 and 9. That's not too shabby at all and would help the team out, but you also have to factor in his major defensive issues, which would potentially negate all the good he provides us.
I'm not against getting him here because we do need more scoring, and he would become our second best scoring big immediately - I just think we need to be very, very careful not to overpay. Okafor has his talents, but he's not the star people seem to think he is. Nowhere near it - at least not yet.
Come on dude. Okafor is not as incapable or as bad as you think. Also being on Philly, which you say was a positive for him, was actually literally the worst team he could have gone to considering his: size/strenghts&weaknesses, age, and conditioning(was tested every grueling game for Philly).
Philly itself was a team without any legit shooters(until garbage time/the game had been put away) or scorers to help Okafor. At 19 he had to carry a team that did not help defensively or offensively for his strengths and weaknesses
Also the wings were horrible defenders and other teams would blow by them and get to the rim/interior....makes sense. That means the front-court had to engage all those time and with Okafor already playing more minutes and stringing more consecutive minutes, well that is just grueling for a 19 year old rookie that is almost 280lbs but has a 7'6'' wingspan and 9'3'' standing reach.
Why philly sucked and especially was the worst for Okafor:
Offensively:
-no shooter or scorers(except Okafor)
-teams PACKED IT IN defensively because there were no legit scorers or 3pt threats
-Okafor was asked to do more than almost all rookies are and with his size he should have been brought along or they should have put another scorer and gotten better defenders....but the team was made to lose and even Adam Silver had to get involved.
-Okafor was the best scorer and played too many minutes together and asked to do way to much, especially concidering he had to work more on his body.
Defensively:
-the wings sucked defensively and other wings blew by them
-the front-court had to engage more attempts to the rim/paint than other bigs had to
-Okafor was too young and because of his strengths and weaknesses was at a disadvantage
Big men that are around 280 and as solid as Okafor, naturally, are really special but they also almost always have difficulties their rookie years. I enjoy looking at things from a dif perspective. The case you make for Okafor is the same case many GM's and tv pundits have. Thats a good thing because Okafor value is real low and IMO he is the most undervalued asset in the NBA because he has realistic improvements to make on his game and he could even be there for next season.
Two basic concepts that, I think, very clearly demonstrate Cousins issues (and disprove some of your arguments).
1: More touches equals more productionIt doesn't matter how young you are, it doesn't matter how bad your team is, it doesn't matter how many shooters your team has. The more touches / shot attempts you get, the more offensive output you are going to produce.
Okafor was the #1 scoring option in Philly, which is why he had a usage rate of 27% and why he attempted almost 15 FGA per game. If you're getting that many touches/shots, and you are even a half competent scorer, then you're going to put up (ballpark) similar scoring numbers to what Okafor did in Philly.
Need proof of that? Just look at Ish Smith. He is a career 5.8 PPG (12.8 Per 36) scorer. He is not even close to being a "good" scorer - he's merely a half competent one. He took 14.8 FGA for the 76ers last year and had a usage rate of 25%. He averaged 14.7 PPG - only 2.8 PPG less then Okafor.
How did he put up such good scoring numbers in Philly when he is basically D-League fodder? Because he took 15 shots a game!
Same is true of Okafor, except for the "D-League Fodder" part. If Okafor was on a better team, his FGA would be lower. If this was the case his scoring numbers would, hence, also be lower.
Jahlil Okafor is a capable scorer - there is no doubt about that. That's why I wouldn't be against Boston getting him IF it's for a very cheap price. But anybody who thinks he is some amazing force of offensive dominance is way off the mark. As far as offensive talent goes, his floor is Greg Monroe, and his ceiling would be a prime Al Jefferson / Brook Lopez. That's as good as it will get. There is no Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Tim Duncan or Hakeem Olajuwon calibre talent in Okafor's offensive game - if anybody believes otherwise them I'm sorry, but I think you are living in dream fairy land.
The best dream scenario I can possible imagine for Okafor is Demarcus Cousins. Both have similar size, length, body types. Both love to dominate the post. Is there a tiny slither of a chance that Okafor could become as good offensively as Cousins?
Personally, I strongly doubt it. Cousins, even as a rookie, had a very good mid range game - he shot 40% on long twos in his rookie year. He was also a monster at drawing fouls, with a 40% free throw rate in his rookie seasons. Last but not least, he was a very advanced passer, with an assist rate of 14.7%. He certainly had his flaws, but the fact that he was already flashing his offensive skill set (post game, jumper, passing ability and his ability to get to the line) as a rookie at age 20 was proof that his potential was sky high. Cousins was also showing flashes of his dominant rebounding (17.2% rebound rate) in his rookie year.
Okafor doesn't have the passing game. He doesn't have the jumper. He doesn't get to the line. His entire offensive is based around his post game, and if you take that away there is nothing left for him to contribute. Maybe he can develop other aspects of his game - nothing is impossible. But It's hard for me to imagine him taking such a dramatic jump and learning to be able to do things that a guy like Cousins could already do when he was a 20 year old rookie.
2: The 'Blame Philly" approachYou try to claim that Okafor's defensive stats only looked so bad because Philly had no perimeter defence, and so this put increased pressure on Okafor defensively.
This argument is completely invalid because (as I've said a million times before) Nerlens Noel had to provide defensive support for the same crappy Sixers team, with the same crappy perimeter defence, and he had some of the best defensive stats in the NBA. Noel is only one year older than Okafor.
To try to blame Okafor's poor stats on the team is an absolutely 100% invalid argument. If the Philly defence is bad enough to cause Okafor to have the 2nd or 3rd worst defensive stats in the entire NBA, then how do you explain Noel having such good defensive stats? If your argument has any merit to it, then Noel must be the best defensive player in the NBA to be able to pull off such impressive defensive stats on the 76ers. He's good - he's not THAT good.
You can try to sugarcoat it all you want, but Okafor's defence was well beyond poor - it was ghastly.
Offensivey, do you know where Okafor ranked on this terrible 76ers team as a shooter?
0-3 Feet: 69.7% (6th)
3-10 Feet: 46.3% (3rd)
10-16 feet: 35.3% (8th)
> 16 feet: 27.4% (13th)
3PT: 16.7% (17th)
Nerlen's Noel's shooting numbers, for comparison purposes:
0-3 Feet: 71.6% (4th)
3-10 Feet: 30.6% (8th)
10-16 feet: 30.6% (11th)
> 16 feet: 23.2% (15th)
3PT: 50% (1st)
Funny - with the exception of 3-10 feet the ranks aren't all that different, are they?
It's not just shooting. Okafor had an assist rate of 8.2% which was good for 13th among all players who sited up for the 76ers last season. Noel had an assist rate of 10.5% which ranked him 10th.
Offensive rebound rate? Okafor 8.1% figure ranked him 5th, while Noel's 8.2% rate slightly edged him for 4th spot.
Defensive rebound rate? Okafor ranked 6th at 17.8%, while Noel ranked 2nd with 22.2%.
I'll put it simply. Beyond post scoring and overall PPG, there was not a single statistical category in which Okafor ranked first on his team - and that's despite the fact that his team was by far the worst in the league. So how can you blame the crapiness of the 76ers for Okafor's problems, when he struggled to even shine above his own apparently hot-garbage teammates?
I get that you obviously like the kid and that's fine, but please - have a little objectiveness! It's not like there is only one statistic that highlights Okafors problems. Almost every single statistic that exists confirms that he is a highly, highly flawed player. His rebounding is poor - the stats back that. His defence is boot - the stats back that. His offensive game certainly has potential, but is currently extremely flawed.
It's important to acknowledge that "potential" is exactly that - it's something that has not occurred, but has the possibility of one day occurring..maybe. Potential doesn't mean it WILL happen, it merely means that it might. To gamble any significant assets on a big man who cannot defends, struggles to rebound and is very limited offensively - based purely on the hope he will one day become an offensive star - is a very big risk to take.
I'm happy to trade for him, but not if it means giving up any of our core players, Brown, or any of the Brooklyn picks. I'd even be hesitant to give up Rozier, to be honest. That kid has a ton of talent...but if push came to shove maybe I'd do it.
James Young, Jordan Mickey, RJ Hunter, Yabusele, Nader, and any drafts picks not belonging to Brooklyn - perfectly happy to do it. Rozier, I'll think about it but probably say no. Anything more, forget it.
Noel is in a similar boat, but I'd be more willing to gamble on him since he already has a number of NBA ready talents - rebounding, defence, athleticism, ability to finish at the rim. I can means his floor is reasonably high, so the risk is on the low side. He's only 21 years old, so his potential to improve (on both ends of the court) is pretty much the same as Okafor's. Given the choice I definitely take Noel as a preference.
Topic: Okafor - The Ringer (article) (Read 45929 times)