Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:34 am Post subject: Stanley Johnson vs. Caris Levert
Love Johnson's defense.
Can't build offensive options around transition play though. Halfcourt offense is a huge question mark for me.
Levert, I know what he can do on the offensive end. He was outpowered by Stanley. At the NBA level, they are two or three positions apart. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Stanley is a better prospect, a two way player with a alpha mentality. I'm not concerned with his half court offense because he has a quick first step and can shoot. Arizona offensive system is limiting his game and they don't have a good PG. He can defend multiple positions as well. Levert seems like a 3 to 4 year project, not ready physically for the league.
I think Johnson is going to be a star in the league, would have a huge impact on the Lakers as a rookie. Some players you can just see are going to be great because of their skillset and physical tools, Johnson is one of those players.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:18 am Post subject:
What is a guy with an alpha mentality with no half court skills?
A quick first step? Levert's is quicker.
Arizona's offensive system isn't limiting. He has been a straight line driver all throughout high school.
The new NBA is predicated on changing directions with quickness, that's why all great teams have a legit point guard.
Wesley Johnson is a freak athlete with a first step too. How is his ball-handling? He goes in straight lines. While Johnson has 30lbs. of muscle on his frame and he has the physical tools, he has the skill level of a two-way role player. Spotting up behind the arc. Finishing. Defense. That's it.
You're right, some guys you can tell can be stars on just physical tools, but he's not even an elite athlete.
I've seen better out of Gerald Wallace, which I'm guessing is Stanley Johnson's upside. My concern is, Wallace took a beating attacking the basket and foul prone because he couldn't change directions.
He was also quicker. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Stanley is 6'7 245 lbs, Wallace 6'7 220 lbs. Wallace has no jump shot at all or playmaking ability. He's also not as powerful as Johnson. I think a fair comparison for Stanley is Joe Johnson/Artest.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:57 am Post subject:
Dave20 wrote:
Stanley is 6'7 245 lbs, Wallace 6'7 220 lbs. Wallace has no jump shot at all or playmaking ability. He's also not as powerful as Johnson. I think a fair comparison for Stanley is Joe Johnson/Artest.
Wallace had a quicker first step and much better vert than Stanley.
Joe Johnson was a triple threat player out of college, at 210lbs entering the league.
So was Artest.
Both Stanley and Crash have similar game out of college. Everything was done in transition or straight-line drives. What Stanley has in strength, Gerald Wallace had as an extra tier in athleticism.
Both have defensive mindsets, a tremendous motor, and score mostly in transition.
But I think Gerald Wallace able to blow by his man had me wanting Robert Horry traded for the first round pick just to get him back then.
What scares me most? As little as Stanley Johnson handles the basketball in the halfcourt, he still averages 2.3 turnovers per game.
That's atrocious. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:38 pm Post subject:
I would go with Levert, strength is the easiest thing to add. He really moves his feet well on D, and that is a good starting point. What sells me is that he can create offense for himself and others. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I don't think its a question of who you choose because levert is not in our draft range and Johnson is. I'm not a big Stanley Johnson guy and I think levert is a prototype wing player but stanley is going to be an all-star In this league because of his size alone. And the fact he can score within the offense is a bonus. Score 15-20 a night, play solid defense and keep the ball miving
like I said Stanley Johnson isn't really my type of player but I sure wouldn't mind it if we draft him. It makes sense considering he's the best player to come from Southern California since baron davis. We should be gifted him on that fact alone.
Last edited by PICKnPOP on Fri Dec 19, 2014 9:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:29 am Post subject:
PICKnPOP wrote:
I don't think its a question of who you choose because levert is not in our draft range and Johnson is. I'm not a big Stanley Johnson guy and I think levert is a prototype wing player but stanley is going to be an all-star In this league because of his size alone. And the fact he can score within the offense is a bonus. Score 15-20 a night, play solid defense and keep the ball miving
like I said Stanley Johnson isn't really my type of player but I sure wouldn't mind it if we draft him. It makes sense considering he's the best player to come from Southern California since baron davis. We should be gifted him on that fact alone.
Disagree.
I wouldn't call "spot up shooting" scoring within an offense. Arizona has to isolate him on the wing or baseline, where no NCAA defender can check him, and he just bullies into the paint. No change of direction, no crafty footwork. Just muscle and wingspan.
At the NBA level, either physical attribute, or both will be met. Then what does he have left? A flat jumpshot.
As bad as the Johnson vs. Levert video looks, Levert was attacking off the dribble, getting into the painted area, facing four different defenders, and trying to create plays for others.
That's the difference between 1st option Levert, and 3rd option Johnson. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:30 am Post subject:
venturalakersfan wrote:
I would go with Levert, strength is the easiest thing to add. He really moves his feet well on D, and that is a good starting point. What sells me is that he can create offense for himself and others.
Agreed. Levert and Clarkson as a backcourt would be tremendous. GSW would have the Splash Brothers.
The Lakers would have the Slash Brothers. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
I don't think its a question of who you choose because levert is not in our draft range and Johnson is. I'm not a big Stanley Johnson guy and I think levert is a prototype wing player but stanley is going to be an all-star In this league because of his size alone. And the fact he can score within the offense is a bonus. Score 15-20 a night, play solid defense and keep the ball miving
like I said Stanley Johnson isn't really my type of player but I sure wouldn't mind it if we draft him. It makes sense considering he's the best player to come from Southern California since baron davis. We should be gifted him on that fact alone.
Disagree.
I wouldn't call "spot up shooting" scoring within an offense. Arizona has to isolate him on the wing or baseline, where no NCAA defender can check him, and he just bullies into the paint. No change of direction, no crafty footwork. Just muscle and wingspan.
At the NBA level, either physical attribute, or both will be met. Then what does he have left? A flat jumpshot.
As bad as the Johnson vs. Levert video looks, Levert was attacking off the dribble, getting into the painted area, facing four different defenders, and trying to create plays for others.
That's the difference between 1st option Levert, and 3rd option Johnson.
Personally I think randle will be the lakers ball dominant player going forward. If that's the case I think Stanley johnsons skillset would fit In perfectly. 3&D guy with above average transition game.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:11 pm Post subject:
PICKnPOP wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
PICKnPOP wrote:
I don't think its a question of who you choose because levert is not in our draft range and Johnson is. I'm not a big Stanley Johnson guy and I think levert is a prototype wing player but stanley is going to be an all-star In this league because of his size alone. And the fact he can score within the offense is a bonus. Score 15-20 a night, play solid defense and keep the ball miving
like I said Stanley Johnson isn't really my type of player but I sure wouldn't mind it if we draft him. It makes sense considering he's the best player to come from Southern California since baron davis. We should be gifted him on that fact alone.
Disagree.
I wouldn't call "spot up shooting" scoring within an offense. Arizona has to isolate him on the wing or baseline, where no NCAA defender can check him, and he just bullies into the paint. No change of direction, no crafty footwork. Just muscle and wingspan.
At the NBA level, either physical attribute, or both will be met. Then what does he have left? A flat jumpshot.
As bad as the Johnson vs. Levert video looks, Levert was attacking off the dribble, getting into the painted area, facing four different defenders, and trying to create plays for others.
That's the difference between 1st option Levert, and 3rd option Johnson.
Personally I think randle will be the lakers ball dominant player going forward. If that's the case I think Stanley johnsons skillset would fit In perfectly. 3&D guy with above average transition game.
I don't want a ball-dominant guy. I want a guy who can change directions when he gets it.
Parker is a ball-dominant PG, but it doesn't stop Ginobili from using a crossover and Eurostep his way to the cup.
I prefer Randle isn't ball-dominant at all. He's still TO prone and doesn't have the court awareness. He can improve it, but that doesn't mean he should run the offense either. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Levert game is similar to Jamal Crawford, both good handles and can score but liability on defensive end. Stanley impacts the game in more ways then scoring. He can defend multiple positions, great rebounder, unstoppable on the fast break, and he's won everywhere he's been. Those are qualities of a franchise player. He's going to make a bad NBA team improve a lot next year.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 7:38 pm Post subject:
Dave20 wrote:
Levert game is similar to Jamal Crawford, both good handles and can score but liability on defensive end. Stanley impacts the game in more ways then scoring. He can defend multiple positions, great rebounder, unstoppable on the fast break, and he's won everywhere he's been. Those are qualities of a franchise player. He's going to make a bad NBA team improve a lot next year.
You had a SF defend a combo guard. Of course he's going to look outsized.
But, if you want to make this about skills and athleticism.
1. Levert has a quicker first step.
2. Levert already gained 25lbs. of muscle in the past 2 years.
3. Levert has a better jumpshot.
4. At 6'7", Levert has the lateral quickness to keep up with point guards defensively.
5. Levert has a better midrange game.
6. Levert is a better ball-handler.
7. Levert is better in isolation.
8. Levert has a far better assist to TO ratio. He's not even the PG. 1.4:1 on 5 assists per game, not 0.7:1 like Stanley Johnson.
9. Levert just turned 20 in August.
10. Levert shoots 45.7% behind the arc on 5 attempts per game.
Jamal Crawford was a project point guard out of Michigan. They tried to force him to play PG early on and it never worked. Crawford never had Levert's natural court vision or passing abilities. Crawford settled being a volume shooter that got hot, and it worked for his career.
Levert is just a higher IQ Larry Hughes. Same exact physical tools, only Levert can already shoot and has to share PG duties with Walton Jr., who is not an NBA level PG by any means.
Stanley Johnson succeeds because he's the perfect fit in Arizona. They need a physical perimeter defender and a guy in transition. Put him in isolation where he needs to create a shot, and he's in trouble. His shotpocket and trajectory already ruin his percentage. He's completely getting by on physical gifts at the NCAA level, but at the NBA level, he's just above average.
One guy has to lead his team despite all of the other teammates already in the NBA.
The other guy is the 3rd or 4th option on a team loaded with NBA talent.
A lot of people are going to think I'm overhyping the kid. I'll just phrase it this way.
He's the NCAA version of Exum. Not as pure with passing. Much better scoring. Height, 1st step, speed, wingspan, playmaking, defense, all the same.
So you can imagine why I shocked that he's that low in the lottery. Lots of freshman are getting hyped as expected, but not every class produces great talent.
Then I see Stanley Johnson. Closest thing to Gerald Wallace, but a notch slower. Compensates with muscle instead.
So, do I want a more polished Exum? Or do I want Gerald Wallace?
I'll take Exum.
I wouldn't even count winning on every level as a big deal. Lots of NBA players have that until they hit the NBA. The fact that Stanley Johnson is the same player since he was a sophomore should scare people. He got bigger. Jumpshot? Average. Ball-handling? Average.
The only true franchise player of the draft is Jahlil Okafor. Others are arguable and potential based.
But it's difficult to have a franchise player based around defense and transition scoring. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Stanley Johnson succeeds because he's a great player and a physical specimen, I don't think being on Arizona makes him less of a player. The PG on Arizona isn't good, Johnson really isn't getting as many opportunities offensively as he should. If he was on Michigan instead of Levert, they probably would be better. He has good handles for a guy his size and he bully players to the rim. Levert is a good prospect but Stanley impacts the game more. He just has that alpha mentally that rubs off on other players.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:00 pm Post subject:
Dave20 wrote:
Stanley Johnson succeeds because he's a great player and a physical specimen, I don't think being on Arizona makes him less of a player. The PG on Arizona isn't good, Johnson really isn't getting as many opportunities offensively as he should. If he was on Michigan instead of Levert, they probably would be better. He has good handles for a guy his size and he bully players to the rim. Levert is a good prospect but Stanley impacts the game more. He just has that alpha mentally that rubs off on other players.
I don't think he's a physical specimen at all. I think he's elite for the NCAA, but above average at the NBA level.
The PG on Arizona is far better than what Michigan has, and Arizona can back that up with top recruit Gabe York (who really needs to stop partying because out of HS, that was Bibby with vert)
If he was on Michigan, it would be worse. Why? Because he's not the shot creator. He gets the same looks from the perimeter as Levert. Unlike Levert, he's not dynamic off the dribble, nor is he a playmaker off of pick and roll situations. The guy is not the top option on offense, barely dribbles the basketball, yet gets 2.4 turnovers in 28 minutes? So my 3rd option guy gets 3 turnovers a game per 40 minutes? That's atrocious.
How does Stanley have more of an alpha mentality? He can't exactly take over the game on the offensive end. I'll give him credit on the three point shot, but guess what that makes him?
A 3-and-D guy. A role player. How is that role any different from Trevor Ariza? If the PG from AZ isn't so good, why isn't he the playmaker?
Levert HAS to, because he has the ability to do it and the PGs from Michigan aren't great. Spike Albrecht is just an undersized 2, who is best at perimeter shooting, not creating shots. Walton Jr.? Didn't learn anything under Trey Burke. What's left? Freshman/sophomore bigs.
There's a huge gap on the offensive side of the ball between both players. Defensively? Not as big as you think it is. Just because Levert doesn't outpower guys defensively, doesn't mean he doesn't draw charges on PGs during a full-court press, or use his wingspan against bigger wings.
If anything, this is a reflection of how weak this draft is with SG/SF. Limited ball-handling almost across the board except for a select few.
Here's a different look at Scouting Stanley Johnson. I don't even agree with the entire video, because they consider him an "excellent ball-handler for his size." Please. Everything is with the right hand. Rare crossover. Can barely dribble twice with his left hand. Can't change direction on the fly. Doesn't even use his foot as a pivot to spin once he stops dribbling.
This is Pre-Arizona, where he was an offensive option.
I'm not a Stanley Johnson guy but I watch a lot of him. (there are two full games on YouTube sdsu and Missouri).
I agree that he's not a first option on offense and I actually think that's what makes him special. The fact that he can get you 15-20 points a game being a third or fourth option. He doesn't need that many plays called for him to be effective. He can get points off of offensive rebounds, spot up shooting, in transition, and at the free throw line. That means that he can expend more energy making plays on the defensive end.
I think he's one of those guys that can just fit in any team he gets added to. If we end up with the 4th pick I would take him without a second thought. I'm really looking forward to his combine results....it will be interesting to see exactly how he stacks up against other NBA wings. He looks like he could be the same size as randle but randle looks faster. That's not good.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 8:26 pm Post subject:
PICKnPOP wrote:
I'm not a Stanley Johnson guy but I watch a lot of him. (there are two full games on YouTube sdsu and Missouri).
I agree that he's not a first option on offense and I actually think that's what makes him special. The fact that he can get you 15-20 points a game being a third or fourth option. He doesn't need that many plays called for him to be effective. He can get points off of offensive rebounds, spot up shooting, in transition, and at the free throw line. That means that he can expend more energy making plays on the defensive end.
That's my issue. That specific role is 3-and-D. I'd love for him to be a Laker, but not when there are far better shot creators in the draft, especially when he's so TO prone.
My other issue is, 30% of his scoring comes from transition. At the NBA level, that number drops to 8-12% as a Laker. Where's that PPG? Down.
Quote:
[I think he's one of those guys that can just fit in any team he gets added to. If we end up with the 4th pick I would take him without a second thought. I'm really looking forward to his combine results....it will be interesting to see exactly how he stacks up against other NBA wings. He looks like he could be the same size as randle but randle looks faster. That's not good.
Just like a 3-and-D guy.
Scary part? What if he gets bigger? Can he still play SF? _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Exactly, this is why I don't see the Wallace and Ariza comparisons. Stanley is 6'7 245 lbs and can get wherever he want's by bullying players to the rim, and his handle isn't as bad as you make it out to be. At worst I see Artest, 18 - 20ppg/7reb player with great defense.
Aaron Gordon is more comparable with those players, all are near 220 lbs. This is what so great about the draft, no one knows exactly how good any of these players going to be. Exum has looked bad and Lavine has looked good. I think Stanley Johnson has all the tools to be a great player.
Yea Stanimal is definately a Ron arrest clone. They are build exactly the same! They move so much alike in the floor it's creepy. I do think johnson is a better athelete than artest though. They both have that weird handle that makes me uncomfortable when they have the ball in thier hands and they both use thier size to bully players offensively and defensively.
@Mike I have a feeling that johnson will get bigger unless he lands on the right team...he literally looks the same size as artest as a laker and he's only 19
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:19 pm Post subject:
Dave20 wrote:
Exactly, this is why I don't see the Wallace and Ariza comparisons. Stanley is 6'7 245 lbs and can get wherever he want's by bullying players to the rim, and his handle isn't as bad as you make it out to be. At worst I see Artest, 18 - 20ppg/7reb player with great defense.
Aaron Gordon is more comparable with those players, all are near 220 lbs. This is what so great about the draft, no one knows exactly how good any of these players going to be. Exum has looked bad and Lavine has looked good. I think Stanley Johnson has all the tools to be a great player.
I don't compare by size.
Ariza was a 6'7" 210lb. PF. He developed into a SF after running the floor and later getting a jumpshot. Before that, he was a project player with asthma. That's why he was a mid-second round pick.
Aaron Gordon is NOT the comparison. Gordon was a better ball-handler and passer at a PF position. On the contrast, Johnson is the better shooter. Gordon had better defensive instincts, even though he doesn't have the speed of Johnson, because he defended PF through SG depending on the match up, even switched onto PGs successfully.
Exum is a project. LaVine only looked good against the Lakers because they played him soft.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:26 pm Post subject:
PICKnPOP wrote:
Yea Stanimal is definately a Ron arrest clone. They are build exactly the same! They move so much alike in the floor it's creepy. I do think johnson is a better athelete than artest though. They both have that weird handle that makes me uncomfortable when they have the ball in thier hands and they both use thier size to bully players offensively and defensively.
@Mike I have a feeling that johnson will get bigger unless he lands on the right team...he literally looks the same size as artest as a laker and he's only 19
They are similar in size, but that's it.
Artest had a post game, 20' range, and better ball-handling. He even played point-forward as a Chicago Bull early on.
Size you can compare. Skill-wise? Not even close. He could actually run the pick-and-roll with success or create a shot and change direction once.
I would be highly concerned if Stanley Johnson gets bigger.
I'm not going to consider "Ron Artest" for a lottery pick. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144461 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 10:05 pm Post subject:
Dave20 wrote:
Levert game is similar to Jamal Crawford, both good handles and can score but liability on defensive end. Stanley impacts the game in more ways then scoring. He can defend multiple positions, great rebounder, unstoppable on the fast break, and he's won everywhere he's been. Those are qualities of a franchise player. He's going to make a bad NBA team improve a lot next year.
I don't see Levert being a defensive liability at all. He already has lateral quickness and move his feet well. Strength is easy to add. And I don't see a speck of franchise player in Johnson. Maybe a good role player but that would be it. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
Page 1 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum