Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:55 pm

lakerfan2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:I'll be shocked if Clarkson isn't on the 8-9 man rotation by the end of the year. People should not confuse a guy like Clarkson with guys like D. Morris and Ebanks. Those guys were complete stiffs compared to Clarkson. They never had the NBA level athleticism to excel at this level while Clarkson does. The big question will be his shot. If it's anything close to his summer league play, his chances are that much better.

Just watch. Scott will properly evaluate this guy in the numerous practices from now until tip off and he will realize that this guy needs to play. He will perform well enough to crack the rotation. Maybe not immediately but eventually, his talents will force Scott to play him.


And you ask us why...


......."to excel at this level."
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Aug 13, 2014 2:58 pm

LTLakerFan wrote:We'll see. Not as simple as you make it seem. What is between his ears when the bright lights of wearing the Lakers' home uniform, and even more tough, road uniform..... in rabid opposing arenas are shining on him? Comes with the territory. With the exception of 1 year, Sasha tore it up shooting. Always in practice but not translated to league NBA play. Ramon Sessions says :wave: as well. Slow, unathletic, older, 2nd time around 2 championship Fisher says :wave: as well. :man12:


I am taking a guess on him. Of course we will have to wait and see.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby lakerfan2 on Wed Aug 13, 2014 6:50 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
lakerfan2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:I'll be shocked if Clarkson isn't on the 8-9 man rotation by the end of the year. People should not confuse a guy like Clarkson with guys like D. Morris and Ebanks. Those guys were complete stiffs compared to Clarkson. They never had the NBA level athleticism to excel at this level while Clarkson does. The big question will be his shot. If it's anything close to his summer league play, his chances are that much better.

Just watch. Scott will properly evaluate this guy in the numerous practices from now until tip off and he will realize that this guy needs to play. He will perform well enough to crack the rotation. Maybe not immediately but eventually, his talents will force Scott to play him.


And you ask us why...


......."to excel at this level."


Ebanks was probably on the same level of athleticism as Ariza. He had pretty much the same height and wingspan and jumping ability, and everyone thought we found his clone. But Ebanks was just not a good player. He lacked drive, the ability to improve skillwise, and had a terrible IQ. He had a DUI for Christ's sake.

Morris was no slouch either. He was fast, could get up for his size, and that made him favorable as a defender. But what he lacked was IQ. Just a terrible playmaking guard and got lost on defense too often.

Then you have guys like Andre Miller, Derek Fisher, Boris Diaw, Robert Horry, who weren't known for being athletic, but we're probably the smartest players you'll see.

Again, every post you make is about athleticism, and you make it seem like it's the biggest draw to an NBA player. The reason why no one brings it up unless it's a freak like Blake or Wigggins? Because ATHLETES ARE ATHLETIC. It's...COMMON SENSE. Guys like Kobe and MJ are nowhere near as athletically gifted as Lebron or Durant, yet I'm sure everyone knows who's better. Just give the athleticism talk a rest, we get it, athletic players have their advantages, but it takes so much more than that at the NBA level.
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9888
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:23 pm

Morris and Ebanks were stiffs compared to Clarkson. Clarkson had a standing vertical of 33" while the other two had standing verticals of 24". That's a huge difference of 9 inches. A standing vertical saids a lot about a players explosiveness and 24" for a guard/wing player is pretty bad. Also, Clarkson's max vertical of 39" is 6 inches better than the 33" by the other two. And then there is the eye test of what he did in summer league. Looking fast and fluid.

And Durant is noticeably more athletic than prime MJ or Kobe? Wow, that's news to me. Durant has off the charts length which he uses to his advantage but more athletic than MJ and Kobe? Hmm.

Look, Clarkson is a prospect so you have to prognosticate. So obvious measurables like athleticism is obviously one of those measures. No one is saying you can't be a good player without athleticism. You gave some examples. But again, when judging prospects, you have to go with measurables, like athleticism because you can't measure intangibles at this point. That's why Wiggins, Gordon and LaVine went so high, as I'm sure you are aware.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:33 pm

Oh, and Ariza had a standing vertical of 29.5", which is more in line with NBA caliber wing players. Like I said, a standing vertical of 24" by Ebanks/Morris saids a lot about their explosive abilities, or lack thereof. Max vertical I take with a grain of salt cause some guys can jump high if you give him a head start. A standing vertical is a better measure of your explosivness and ability to get off the floor quickly.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby S.R.05 on Wed Aug 13, 2014 10:49 pm

^i would tend to agree with you LGL, just based on the eyeball test. clarkson from what i saw in the summer league looks a lot quicker than morris or ebanks. neither of those 2 were necessarily slow or bad athletes, but they weren't anything special either. when i saw clarkson play my first impression was that he moves like a legit nba guard
Hindsight is 20/20
User avatar
S.R.05
Clublakers Analyst
 
Posts: 11368
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 9:18 pm
Location: Chatsworth, CA

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Aug 13, 2014 11:03 pm

S.R.05 wrote:^i would tend to agree with you LGL, just based on the eyeball test. clarkson from what i saw in the summer league looks a lot quicker than morris or ebanks. neither of those 2 were necessarily slow or bad athletes, but they weren't anything special either. when i saw clarkson play my first impression was that he moves like a legit nba guard


Yup. The eye test is most important to me. What good are impressive combine numbers if they don't translate to the court? Clarkson just reaffirmed his combine numbers on the court. Fom what I saw in summer league, his fluidity and movement screams NBA guard. Like if he were to be a star, I would not be shocked one bit. Cause the foundation is there.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby trodgers on Thu Aug 14, 2014 5:55 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:Morris and Ebanks were stiffs compared to Clarkson. Clarkson had a standing vertical of 33" while the other two had standing verticals of 24". That's a huge difference of 9 inches. A standing vertical saids a lot about a players explosiveness and 24" for a guard/wing player is pretty bad. Also, Clarkson's max vertical of 39" is 6 inches better than the 33" by the other two. And then there is the eye test of what he did in summer league. Looking fast and fluid.

How do you decide when to use "the eye test" and when to use hard measures? Because Morris was faster in a 3/4 sprint than Clarkson. Imagine someone said, "Morris is 1/10 of a second faster in the 3/4 sprint, showing that he has superior speed. And everyone knows that flat-footed vertical is a useless measure for a guard, because they're always on the run..."

And Durant is noticeably more athletic than prime MJ or Kobe? Wow, that's news to me. Durant has off the charts length which he uses to his advantage but more athletic than MJ and Kobe? Hmm.

I don't know who said that, but you're absolutely right. Durant doesn't strike me as an athlete to be mentioned with the other two. Better shooter? Sure. Better athlete? I don't see why.

Look, Clarkson is a prospect so you have to prognosticate. So obvious measurables like athleticism is obviously one of those measures. No one is saying you can't be a good player without athleticism. You gave some examples. But again, when judging prospects, you have to go with measurables, like athleticism because you can't measure intangibles at this point. That's why Wiggins, Gordon and LaVine went so high, as I'm sure you are aware.

But you're not measuring. You're using the eye test. And there's great evidence about how unreliable first person observations are - confirmation bias, for instance.
blog.travisjrodgers.com
Its like Dr. Buss is guarding the Celtic rim this second half. Nothings dropping
User avatar
trodgers
Site Manager
 
Posts: 46558
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:47 am

trodgers wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:Morris and Ebanks were stiffs compared to Clarkson. Clarkson had a standing vertical of 33" while the other two had standing verticals of 24". That's a huge difference of 9 inches. A standing vertical saids a lot about a players explosiveness and 24" for a guard/wing player is pretty bad. Also, Clarkson's max vertical of 39" is 6 inches better than the 33" by the other two. And then there is the eye test of what he did in summer league. Looking fast and fluid.

How do you decide when to use "the eye test" and when to use hard measures? Because Morris was faster in a 3/4 sprint than Clarkson. Imagine someone said, "Morris is 1/10 of a second faster in the 3/4 sprint, showing that he has superior speed. And everyone knows that flat-footed vertical is a useless measure for a guard, because they're always on the run..."

And Durant is noticeably more athletic than prime MJ or Kobe? Wow, that's news to me. Durant has off the charts length which he uses to his advantage but more athletic than MJ and Kobe? Hmm.

I don't know who said that, but you're absolutely right. Durant doesn't strike me as an athlete to be mentioned with the other two. Better shooter? Sure. Better athlete? I don't see why.

Look, Clarkson is a prospect so you have to prognosticate. So obvious measurables like athleticism is obviously one of those measures. No one is saying you can't be a good player without athleticism. You gave some examples. But again, when judging prospects, you have to go with measurables, like athleticism because you can't measure intangibles at this point. That's why Wiggins, Gordon and LaVine went so high, as I'm sure you are aware.

But you're not measuring. You're using the eye test. And there's great evidence about how unreliable first person observations are - confirmation bias, for instance.


1/10th of a second in a straight run means little in basketball. Fluidity, quickness, agility, change of direction, explosiveness, etc. These are what matter. And I would disagree that a flat footed vertical is useless. It's very important because it measures your NATURAL ability to get off the floor. Again, it's not the ball all, end all but a solid measure of your explosive ability.

And this is what Lakersfan2 said in a post above regarding Durant, "Guys like Kobe and MJ are nowhere near as athletically gifted as Lebron or Durant."

And you are right about the eye test being unreliable sometimes. Even pro scouts get it wrong all the time. It's just my take on Clarkson based on my experience with the game. Nothing more.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby lakerfan2 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:50 am

My definition athleticism includes size. The combination of both puts players in a different category of gifted. I'm sure you've thrown it around yourself.

Could you imagine Kobe or Michael with the physical tools that Lebron or Durant had? It wouldn't even be fair. Per size are they "athletically" similar? Sure. How often do you see guys like Lebron and Kevin take guys their size? It's unreal for that size.

SO many players are athletic and NEVER make it to the NBA, hell, even the D-League. That's why you have guys who never get drafted, or play overseas. There are plenty of athletes with extreme verticals and speed ratings, yet, still don't make it or fail to become the player they're expected to be. Why is this? Because athleticism isn't everything you make it out to be.
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9888
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby trodgers on Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:04 am

I don't see how size is PART of athleticism; it's part of the package of evaluating a player, no doubt, but it seems like something quite separate.

LetsGoLakers: I wonder if you're starting to see why people react so negatively to you; when you spell out your view clearly it's either non-controversial or the kind of thing that reasonable people can converse about. I don't think that standing vertical matters at all for a PG. So I don't care much if a guy has an 8" higher standing vertical. I agree that vertical on the run is important for basically every position though.

You're simply begging the question when you say that standing vertical is a good measure of your "NATURAL" (whatever that means) ability to get off the floor. Either that's false - because it's only part of the measure and running vertical is also part, or it's useless - because if you can't use it in a game it doesn't matter.
blog.travisjrodgers.com
Its like Dr. Buss is guarding the Celtic rim this second half. Nothings dropping
User avatar
trodgers
Site Manager
 
Posts: 46558
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:49 am

trodgers wrote:I don't see how size is PART of athleticism; it's part of the package of evaluating a player, no doubt, but it seems like something quite separate.

LetsGoLakers: I wonder if you're starting to see why people react so negatively to you; when you spell out your view clearly it's either non-controversial or the kind of thing that reasonable people can converse about. I don't think that standing vertical matters at all for a PG. So I don't care much if a guy has an 8" higher standing vertical. I agree that vertical on the run is important for basically every position though.

You're simply begging the question when you say that standing vertical is a good measure of your "NATURAL" (whatever that means) ability to get off the floor. Either that's false - because it's only part of the measure and running vertical is also part, or it's useless - because if you can't use it in a game it doesn't matter.


"Natural" as in you are not relying on any momentum to assist you in your vertical (such as max vertical). In a standing vertical, it's just you and gravity. How high you get up is a good measure of your natural explosion. Most human beings can get off only a few inches off the ground when standing still. The elite athletes are the ones who can really get up there. And like I said before, some guys are able to jump pretty high if you give them a running start but can't jump that high when standing still. I look at both vertical numbers to tell me the story of a player.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby lakerfan2 on Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:23 am

trodgers wrote:I don't see how size is PART of athleticism; it's part of the package of evaluating a player, no doubt, but it seems like something quite separate.


Sure, athleticism as a measure may not seem "PART" of it, but it sure adds to it.

For example, I would see Lebron/Blake Griffin as more athletic guys than Nate Robinson, who probably is more athletic from a measurement standpoint. However, the combination is another story, and I did say it was a combination of both, but it really takes a players athletic limits to another level when you include the size of a player.
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9888
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby SFGOLDRUSHER on Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:45 pm

lol. I hope you guys feel good about your argument when at the end of the day we all WANT AND KNOW he has potential to be a good player. Start bringing in some tape on him vs a player currently in the NBA or news how hes looking like against our own players...Perhaps too, what would also make sense is we can just wait until the season starts&see how he truly does. Thanks, love yall ;)
User avatar
SFGOLDRUSHER

 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Savory Griddles on Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:02 pm

I find it funny that our second round pick has had his thread driven up to 18 pages in less than 2 months because of a "discussion" driven by a Clipper fan. :man10:
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9039
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby SFGOLDRUSHER on Thu Aug 14, 2014 8:15 pm

lol. Word to Jordan Clarksons mother. Hey btw are you from Apple Valley, CA?
User avatar
SFGOLDRUSHER

 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby trodgers on Fri Aug 15, 2014 6:11 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:"Natural" as in you are not relying on any momentum to assist you in your vertical (such as max vertical). In a standing vertical, it's just you and gravity.

Yes, you are. You swing your arms, bend at your knees, and then jump. You're simply begging the question. You can just say "in the one you're taking some running steps; in the other you're not." Okay - now tell me why we should care about a PG's ability to stand still and leap high. Kendall Marshall had a 31 inch standing vertical and 37 inch running vertical. It didn't factor into his game though. Chris Paul doesn't make vertical leaping a part of his game, but he's one of the best in the league.

How high you get up is a good measure of your natural explosion. Most human beings can get off only a few inches off the ground when standing still. The elite athletes are the ones who can really get up there. And like I said before, some guys are able to jump pretty high if you give them a running start but can't jump that high when standing still. I look at both vertical numbers to tell me the story of a player.

I still have no idea what you mean by "natural" or why it matters. To be clear, then, you're saying that you get "the story of a player" from two measures: standing and running vertical. I'll say that that seems ridiculous, so I'll wait to hear how you'll modify the account before I continue.
blog.travisjrodgers.com
Its like Dr. Buss is guarding the Celtic rim this second half. Nothings dropping
User avatar
trodgers
Site Manager
 
Posts: 46558
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:17 am

trodgers wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:"Natural" as in you are not relying on any momentum to assist you in your vertical (such as max vertical). In a standing vertical, it's just you and gravity.

Yes, you are. You swing your arms, bend at your knees, and then jump. You're simply begging the question. You can just say "in the one you're taking some running steps; in the other you're not." Okay - now tell me why we should care about a PG's ability to stand still and leap high. Kendall Marshall had a 31 inch standing vertical and 37 inch running vertical. It didn't factor into his game though. Chris Paul doesn't make vertical leaping a part of his game, but he's one of the best in the league.

How high you get up is a good measure of your natural explosion. Most human beings can get off only a few inches off the ground when standing still. The elite athletes are the ones who can really get up there. And like I said before, some guys are able to jump pretty high if you give them a running start but can't jump that high when standing still. I look at both vertical numbers to tell me the story of a player.

I still have no idea what you mean by "natural" or why it matters. To be clear, then, you're saying that you get "the story of a player" from two measures: standing and running vertical. I'll say that that seems ridiculous, so I'll wait to hear how you'll modify the account before I continue.


Do you play the game? Cause some of the things you question have me perplexed.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby trodgers on Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:27 am

Do I play basketball? Yeah.
Do you employ critical thinking and strive for consistency of argument? Some of the things you're saying leave me perplexed.
blog.travisjrodgers.com
Its like Dr. Buss is guarding the Celtic rim this second half. Nothings dropping
User avatar
trodgers
Site Manager
 
Posts: 46558
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Orlando

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby lakerfan2 on Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:40 am

Because in basketball, the rule is, you can't jump without a start, standing still only. :man12:
#OURHOUSE
User avatar
lakerfan2

 
Posts: 9888
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:23 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Savory Griddles on Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:50 am

SFGOLDRUSHER wrote:lol. Word to Jordan Clarksons mother. Hey btw are you from Apple Valley, CA?


No. Aliso Viejo. It's in Orange County. It's near Laguna Beach. That would probably be the closest city of note for someone outside of the area.
User avatar
Savory Griddles

 
Posts: 9039
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:56 am
Location: AV,CA

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby jimbo327 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 3:06 am

Clarkson passes the eye test. He's legit. I stake my reputation on it.

May need to bulk up some though.

He's got the speed and size. Need to work on D and vision, but I think he will learn from Nash for the vision. Lin actually has pretty good man D, except he is shorter and not as athletic. So if he just learns, I think he'll be pretty good. He's got that transition speed, and that is the key.

Not saying he is going to be like a great player, but he's got potential. That's all you can ask for from a 2nd rounder.
Soylent Green is People!
User avatar
jimbo327

 
Posts: 14910
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Where Else?

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby Rooscooter on Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:39 pm

jimbo327 wrote:Clarkson passes the eye test. He's legit. I stake my reputation on it.


bookmarked for future reference.... ridicule..... :man1:

I like what I saw to a certain degree however he's yet to play a game against the real NBA. It's amazing how that little thing can nullify all of that athleticism in a heartbeat.....
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 22953
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby abeer3 on Sun Aug 17, 2014 1:06 pm

i think he actually looked a lot like Austin Rivers in sl.
abeer3

 
Posts: 10399
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:15 pm

Re: Jordan Clarkson Discussion

Postby jimbo327 on Mon Aug 18, 2014 1:01 am

Rooscooter wrote:
jimbo327 wrote:Clarkson passes the eye test. He's legit. I stake my reputation on it.


bookmarked for future reference.... ridicule..... :man1:

I like what I saw to a certain degree however he's yet to play a game against the real NBA. It's amazing how that little thing can nullify all of that athleticism in a heartbeat.....


LOL. Well, I'm not saying he is going to be a star, so don't get me wrong. I see a little of George Hill in him. But I think he'll stick in the NBA if he bulks up and use the god given tools that he has. He can learn work ethics from Kobe, PG play from Nash, and if he learns to play a little more D...he'll be a pretty good PG. He already has that speed. I think he is too slight right now. He needs to add more muscle on those shoulders, and then he will be able to turn the corner. Right now, he is getting bumped and he spins out of it. It'll work in the summer league, but in the NBA, you do that spin and it's a chase down block swat on those layups. He's got a nice shooting form, so more practice will make it perfect. So that's where work ethics come in, but I think once he sees Kobe's work ethic...he'll the huge gap and he'll try to fit in. I wish we still had Ron Artest, then he can learn how to play D. LOL. He can work on the handles as well. But he definitely has upside potential, some pop in those legs.

I say you let him learn next year on the bench, give him some garbage minutes. And I think the following year, you will see a different and improved player. I just like the fact he has that easy speed and he seem to focus in traffic. Those are things that are hard to teach, and he already has that. The rest is all just putting in the work, and that comes from within. In the NBA, you have all day to practice, it's just do you want it or not.
Soylent Green is People!
User avatar
jimbo327

 
Posts: 14910
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 10:56 pm
Location: Where Else?

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.