OFFICIAL BRANDON INGRAM THREAD
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BigBoi
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 3068

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 12:56 am    Post subject:

https://youtu.be/TKBsLnaRdKc

Brandon Ingram’s all star season
_________________
#mamba4ever! đź’śđź’›
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ingle
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 17 Mar 2017
Posts: 887

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 2:16 am    Post subject:

Never had any doubt in the young drippa! The day we traded him is one of the blackest days for me as a Laker fan and I said as such here, since I thought he was going to be our next Kobe. He had the skills, the swagger and the desire to get better just like Kobe did. Although I should have known there will never be another Kobe, BI is the closest I've seen in terms of just elevating his game every single season.

Pels just demolished Memphis by 30 today, they're gonna be scary sooner than we think.
_________________
BBB back to back to back
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MJST
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 18875

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 9:21 am    Post subject:

Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.
_________________
How NBA 2K18 failed the All-Time Lakers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxMBYm3wwxk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Luminous8
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2017
Posts: 2056

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:22 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.


I still expect Zo to be there eventually.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Judah
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 4631

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 5:02 pm    Post subject:

MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.
_________________
“Christ did not die to forgive sinners who go on treasuring anything above seeing and savoring God. And people who would be happy in heaven if Christ were not there, will not be there."
- John Piper
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 7:11 pm    Post subject:

Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PayasoLoco
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 Jul 2001
Posts: 15791

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 11:59 am    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


DING DING DING.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 23805

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:14 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


This is the proverbial dead horse. For what it's worth, I've never been sold on this argument. With the possible exception of Ingram, I'm not sure that any of the kids are going to develop into legitimate star quality players, and I'm not sure that the Lakers could have done anything differently that would have changed that or that would have made them develop more quickly. Given the philosophy of the current front office, I expect that we would have burned them all anyway. It may work out. We shall see.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigBoi
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 3068

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 12:32 pm    Post subject:

He’s been so consistently good. He’s having another awesome game against the Rockets. Anyone still questioning his fit with Zion?
_________________
#mamba4ever! đź’śđź’›
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:34 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


This is the proverbial dead horse. For what it's worth, I've never been sold on this argument. With the possible exception of Ingram, I'm not sure that any of the kids are going to develop into legitimate star quality players, and I'm not sure that the Lakers could have done anything differently that would have changed that or that would have made them develop more quickly. Given the philosophy of the current front office, I expect that we would have burned them all anyway. It may work out. We shall see.


How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.

Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
TheBlackMamba
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Apr 2007
Posts: 7744

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:45 pm    Post subject:

Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season. They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 1:59 pm    Post subject:

TheBlackMamba wrote:
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season. They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.


I don't see this at all..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
BigBoi
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 May 2012
Posts: 3068

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 2:46 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
TheBlackMamba wrote:
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season. They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.


I don't see this at all..


Nope, me neither

Only part I agree with is the Gentry part, also I think they take too many quick bad 3s but that’s the nature of the new nba which sucks!
_________________
#mamba4ever! đź’śđź’›
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
oldschool32
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 20032

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 3:57 pm    Post subject:

Steady improvement. BI and Zion don't look too bad together, and it's still early.
_________________
"It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up."-The Greatest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 6:08 pm    Post subject:

BigBoi wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
TheBlackMamba wrote:
Side note/(bleep) and moaning on my part - and don't get me wrong because the Pels are fun as hell and have a blindingly bright future ahead of them, but it's funny how the media tries so damn hard to anoint them THIS season. They want so badly for the Pels to make the 8th seed and challenge/possibly upset the Lakers, when there are a bunch of team other teams ahead of them playing better ball. Until an Alvin Gentry team plays defense, I'm not remotely scared of them.


I don't see this at all..


Nope, me neither

Only part I agree with is the Gentry part, also I think they take too many quick bad 3s but that’s the nature of the new nba which sucks!


Yea agree on Gentry..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 23805

PostPosted: Sun Feb 02, 2020 9:52 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.

Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.


The specific question is whether the kids would have developed more quickly with different coaches. I don’t see any reason to think they would, especially given their health issues. Ingram has made a jump in the first half of his fourth season. Ball has made a modest improvement in the first half of his third season. Would they have reached their current levels last season if we had different coaches? I don’t see any reason to think so.

Young players are going to improve in most cases. By itself, the fact that a player got better proves nothing about the quality of coaching. Sometimes, it has more to do with a player being willing to listen to the coaches than to anything the coaches do. Getting traded may facilitate this. In the case of Ingram, it was always going to be a question of physical development.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
waterman40
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 5490
Location: Central Coast

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 2:25 am    Post subject:

Wishing him the best.

Every trade has its price, especially if you are getting a future Hall of Famer. Sort of like the Pau Gasol deal, we gave out Marc Gasol, that turned out to be a very good player for 10 years after the trade. The Shaq trade we didn't really want to make, got us Lamar Odom, who ended up being a very key piece when we re-booted with Kobe and Pau that got us more rings.

It's all water under the bridge, coulda, shoulda, woulda; we traded away the kids, got rid of a couple of awful contracts, and got Lebron and AD.
_________________
LAKERS 2019-2020: Let's do this...the Lakers are back.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:05 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
How could you not be sold? Look at Ingram and Ball's improvement from deep. Russell is also a better player.

Some may not agree but Clarkson, and Randle would have benefited greatly from a better coaching staff while they were still building their foundation.


The specific question is whether the kids would have developed more quickly with different coaches. I don’t see any reason to think they would, especially given their health issues. Ingram has made a jump in the first half of his fourth season. Ball has made a modest improvement in the first half of his third season. Would they have reached their current levels last season if we had different coaches? I don’t see any reason to think so.

Young players are going to improve in most cases. By itself, the fact that a player got better proves nothing about the quality of coaching. Sometimes, it has more to do with a player being willing to listen to the coaches than to anything the coaches do. Getting traded may facilitate this. In the case of Ingram, it was always going to be a question of physical development.


There was no shooting coach, the kids were instructed not to shoot as much from deep as a remedy to their shooting woes. I rest my case there.. We can agree to disagree I guess.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
55
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 12067

PostPosted: Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:55 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Tue Feb 04, 2020 3:22 pm    Post subject:

55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
55
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 12067

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:40 am    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.


You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.

Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 108257

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 7:50 am    Post subject:

55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.


You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.

Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.


Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there.
_________________
LBJ in 22 playoff games (2017-18): 34/9/9
AD in 9 playoff games (2017-18): 30/13/2.3bpg/2spg.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:47 pm    Post subject:

55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.


You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.

Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.


I'm not.. Look at my first response.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
SocalDevin
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 May 2016
Posts: 7367
Location: Long Beach

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:51 pm    Post subject:

yinoma2001 wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.


You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.

Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.


Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there.


I've never bought the media narrative that Ingram had trouble "fitting"..

Took him a while but Ingram figured out how to play with Bron. Finished the season at 28PPG on high efficiency. Playing with Bron wouldn't have stifled his game.. Bad coaching is what did that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
hype
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 1812
Location: Mission Viejo

PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:55 pm    Post subject:

SocalDevin wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
55 wrote:
SocalDevin wrote:
Judah wrote:
MJST wrote:
Two all-stars within 2 seasons of the Lakers giving them up. Russell and Ingram.

Meanwhile, they traded for a guy who makes the All-Star team every year, while it remains to be seen that either will become players of that caliber. Russell didn't even make it this year.


His comment had nothing to do with AD and you know that. Some of you insist on diminishing the current value of our former prospects by comparing them to a future HOF.

The point is if we did a better job of developing our prospects we wouldn't have had to part with so many of them to get an AD deal done.

We'd be in a much better position to contend for a title at present if that were the case.


It has everything to do with AD. We didn’t just cut them because we thought they weren’t any good. We created cap space and traded them for much better parts.


It's not about AD.. it's about how much they had to give up to acquire him. This should be simple to understand..

If the Lakers did a better job of developing their talent, we would have more assets at present.


You're arguing about something completely different now. Comment was made that we "gave them up", which we didn't since we got the better player. You're arguing that we didn't develop them properly, which is valid.

Age is also a crucial part of development. We knew BI would be a star, he just needed time to grow into one.


Not only time, but the space to be a playmaker/creator. With LBJ, tougher to get there.


I've never bought the media narrative that Ingram had trouble "fitting"..

Took him a while but Ingram figured out how to play with Bron. Finished the season at 28PPG on high efficiency. Playing with Bron wouldn't have stifled his game.. Bad coaching is what did that.


I agree 100%, Ingram is the kind of player that can change his game to fit with who he is playing along side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1878, 1879, 1880, 1881  Next
Page 1879 of 1881
Jump to:  

 
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






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB