Introduction:
Recently, I happened upon this article. Its writers (the staff of Cold Hard Football Facts) attempted to create the best 11-man football team they possibly could. In other words, each player would have to be capable of performing on offense, defense, and even special teams. But that article's authors fell into a trap: since most players who played on both sides of the ball are very, very old, they picked mostly these players for their team.
(They also did other stupid things, like trying to pick "winners". In that article they also claim that their team "represent[s] the full spectrum of league history," which, as you shall soon see, is nonsense.)
The result of that approach is that their team is mostly composed of football players from the ancient era. Only three players on their list (Lawrence Taylor, Deion Sanders, and Joe Greene) played the majority of their career in the post-merger league. Six of their players even predate Jim Brown, which means the majority of their team was playing in the racist NFL, back in the era of quotas and segregation.
Yes, the modern NFL demands specialization, which is why it's so rare to see a modern player play on both sides of the ball. But that doesn't mean they're unable to do so. In fact, I have assembled here (with some collaboration) what I believe to be a far better team than the one CHFF offers in their article. I will first present the team and then offer my justifications for each player below.
The Eleven:
Russell Wilson: QB/SS
Randy Moss: WR/FS
Deion Sanders: CB/WR/KR/PR
Chad Johnson: WR/CB/K/P
Walter Jones: LT/DT
Dwight Stephenson: C/DT/LS
JJ Watt: OLB/RT
Lawrence Taylor: OLB/TE
Patrick Willis: MLB/RB
Reggie White: DE/OG
Bruce Smith: DE/OG
The Team By Position:
QB: Russell Wilson
RB: Patrick Willis
WR: Randy Moss
WR: Chad Johnson
WR: Deion Sanders
TE: Lawrence Taylor
LT: Walter Jones
LG: Reggie White
C: Dwight Stephenson
RG: Bruce Smith
RT: JJ Watt
DE: Reggie White
DT: Walter Jones
DT: Dwight Stephenson
DE: Bruce Smith
OLB: Lawrence Taylor
MLB: Patrick Willis
OLB: JJ Watt
CB: Deion Sanders
CB: Chad Johnson
FS: Randy Moss
SS: Russell Wilson
K: Chad Johnson
P: Chad Johnson
LS: Dwight Stephenson
KR/PR: Deion Sanders
Justifications:
Russell Wilson: At quarterback, my first priority was to secure an elite passer. The position of quarterback in the NFL is arguably the most valuable position in all of sports, and this importance has only increased as the league has tilted more towards passing offenses in recent years. Sacrificing passing talent for other abilities, like athleticism or versatility, may seem like a good idea for an 11-man team, but I would argue that prioritizing passing will give our team a bigger advantage than the one we would gain by prioritizing other abilities.
Fortunately, this is no longer a tradeoff we have to grapple with. This past season, Russell Wilson has proven himself to be an elite passer while also possessing all the other attributes we're looking for. As a passer, he is elite, having led the league in passer rating and gone on one of the greatest passing tears in league history this season. As a runner, he is exceptionally elusive and deceptively quick, while also possessing a good instinct to get down or out of bounds when a hit is coming. He is relatively athletic, although he wouldn't necessarily be my first choice if I had to play a quarterback on defense. That being said, Wilson is also a versatile athlete, having been drafted on three separate occasions (including once in the 5th round) by MLB teams.
But Wilson's trump card (and the biggest reason he's on this roster rather than Cam Newton) is his ability to survive under pressure: Wilson is astoundingly good at maintaining a high level of play while being rushed. Given that this team's offensive line is comprised of 60% non-offensive-linemen (which he already has to deal with from his offensive line on the Seahawks), Wilson is easily the best man for the job.
On defense, I elected to have Wilson play strong safety. He doesn't have the elite speed that you'd expect from a cornerback, nor does he have the size to play linebacker. But he is athletic enough to lay down some hits, and his knowledge of the opposing team's offense will be outstanding. I don't see Wilson dominating at his new position, but I could easily see him performing at least decently.
Randy Moss: Since our offensive line was going to be a nightmare, I wanted to provide Wilson with an elite weapon, someone whom he could lean on to help him carry the offense. Moss is a perfect candidate. Not only is he the easily greatest deep-ball threat of all time, but he's also elite at everything else you could possibly want from a pass-catching wide receiver: speed, quickness, hands, route-running, and elusiveness. (If you haven't seen much of Moss, I highly recommend this video, and, if you have time, try this one. At the VERY LEAST, watch the play starting at 1:19 in the first video, and the play directly after that.)
Moss was an unstoppable freak of nature, utterly uncoverable and constantly open. He made opposing defensive backs look like fools as he beat two or three of them at a time to the ball. It wasn't just his speed and quickness that made him so good, but also his sense of timing and his acceleration. He had an innate understanding of exactly when his defender's attention would lapse, just for a millisecond, at which point Moss would instantaneously accelerate to his top speed, which far outpaced anyone else on the field. He could juke defenders by simply slowing down and speeding back up (as he did in the play I mentioned at 1:19 in the video), and his body control was absolute.
Moss was, of course, a multisport star. While in high school, he was twice named West Virginia Player of the Year in basketball, despite playing on the same team as future NBA player Jason Williams. He was also an elite runner in track and field both in high school and college; during his freshman year at Marshall, despite not having raced competitively for four years, Moss performed among the best in the country in the 200-meter dash, with a 21.15.
On defense, the obvious position for Moss was at free safety. I think he would have made a great cornerback, but free safety is honestly his natural position. With his speed and unparalleled ability to catch jump-balls at their high points, I suspect Moss would catch more interceptions than he would allow completions.
Deion Sanders: One of the few choices that CHFF and I agree on, Sanders is practically a gimme in an exercise like this. To start with, he's an all-time great cornerback who was also an elite kick and punt returner, earning six First-Team All-Pros and eight Pro Bowl appearances for three different teams. He was probably the greatest cover corner ever, despite having relatively unimpressive technique, simply because with his inhuman speed (his 40-yard dash time was a 4.21, one of the fastest ever recorded) he could cover half the field easily.
But Sanders was much more than just a football star. In high school he played baseball and basketball, and in college he dropped basketball and added track, but unlike most NFL players he didn't drop these sports when he turned pro. Instead, he played two pro careers simultaneously: from 1989 to 2001 (at which time he had retired from baseball and, temporarily, football), Sanders played 163 games of football for four different teams, making and winning two Super Bowls (in '94 with the 49ers, and in '95 with the Cowboys). At the same time, he played 71 games of baseball for four different teams, making and losing a World Series in '92 with the Braves. (In that series, Sanders played exceptionally well, batting .533 with 4 runs, 8 hits, 2 doubles, and 1 RBI, despite playing on a broken foot.) Sanders is the only player to ever play in both a Super Bowl and a World Series.
It probably won't surprise you to hear that Sanders was also a competent wide receiver, catching 60 passes for 784 yards and 3 touchdowns in his career. That's the position I chose to start him at on offense. With his incredible speed, legendary versatility and athleticism, and moderate experience, I expect him to perform very well. Sanders is also, naturally, my kick and punt returner, since he excels at both.
Chad Johnson: This one may come as a surprise. Johnson is not one of the greatest receivers of all time, although he is very good, and he's not one of the most versatile athletes at the position, although he is fairly athletic. The real reason he's on this team is because of a relatively unknown ability that Johnson possesses: he can kick. Now, when I made this team, I decided that under no circumstances would I sacrifice a position on offense and defense to a kicker or a punter. I don't consider either of those positions to be as valuable as most people do, and I suspect that many NFL players can probably learn to punt fairly easily. That being said, it is occasionally necessary (or at least very desirable) to be able to kick the ball, and Johnson provides that versatility. (I should note that I'm not convinced of Johnson's ability to kick off effectively, but he might be able to learn.) I have Johnson listed as both my kicker and punter, but it's entirely possible that another player turns out to be a more effective punter and takes the position from him.
Although Johnson is not at the athletic level of most other players on this list, he is an excellent receiver. From around 2003-2007, Johnson was a household name and one of the best receivers in the league, playing for an excellent Bengals team that starred Carson Palmer, Rudi Johnson, Chad Johnson, and TJ Houshmandzadeh in what a commentator once described as a "four-headed monster" on offense. I'm playing Johnson at cornerback on defense, since I think wide receiver is the position most closely related to cornerback, so I suspect some of the skills are transferable.
Walter Jones: In the making of this team, the most important attribute to consider was, of course, versatility. So the fact that Jones makes the team despite having virtually no experience playing anything but left tackle is a testament both to how superb he was at the position, and to how important the position is to a team.
Let’s start with left tackle. Prior to around 1980, left tackle was just another position on the offensive line, played much the same as any other. Big bodies, big frames, real strong. All that changed in the early ‘80s, when dominant edge-rushers started to take over the league. The key transformative figure in this period was Lawrence Taylor, who’s widely considered the best defender ever, and whose influence on the position of left tackle is well documented in The Blind Side (the book, not the movie), which you should read.
The idea, to briefly summarize, was this: most quarterbacks are right-handed, meaning that when they drop back to pass, they’re facing towards the right side of the field. Therefore, if a pass-rusher could beat the left tackle, he could hit the quarterback’s blind side, which would both prevent the QB from evading the hit and increase the chances of a turnover. And since Taylor was such a dominant pass-rusher, NFL teams naturally had to compensate by making their left tackles better able to hold off Taylor and pass-rushers like him.
The new left tackles were a different breed than any who came before. They were tall and incredibly strong, but they were fast too, with exceptional footwork and impeccable technique. The best of them virtually never got beaten. The first LT in the new tradition was Anthony Munoz, followed by Willie Roaf, Jonathan Ogden, Orlando Pace, and of course Walter Jones.
The legend of Walter Jones was stunning to behold. He started 12 years for the Seahawks, playing in 180 games and blocking for more than 5,500 passes. Yet in all those plays, he only allowed 23 sacks and was called for holding only nine times—and 3 of those 23 sacks came in Jones’s very last game of his career, when he was injured and playing against the great DeMarcus Ware. But back in 2005, when Ware was first exploding onto the scene, Jones didn’t even know who Ware was; he was so good regardless of the competition that it simply didn’t matter who he was going up against.
When back problems prevented him from squatting to stay in shape, Jones decided to train every morning in the offseason by pushing around a 6,800-pound Cadillac Escalade. And he did this in Alabama, in July. Mike Holmgren, who coached such talent as Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, Steve Young, Brett Favre, Shaun Alexander, and Steve Hutchinson, described Jones as the best offensive player he’d ever coached. There’s some debate as to who is the best left tackle of all time, but the argument begins and ends with Jones.
The bottom line is that Jones is such an incredible athlete, and LT is such an important position, that it’s justified to spend one of our roster spots on him. On defense, he’ll play DT, where his size, strength, and blocking skills will be the most valuable.
Dwight Stephenson: Very few people besides me and ProFootballFocus realize just how good Stephenson was. PFF, for their part, named their MVP-replacement award the “Dwight Stephenson Award,” with the intention of naming the best player in the NFL regardless of position. (JJ Watt, by the way, won the first three Stephenson awards.)
Stephenson played center for the Dolphins for eight years in the ‘80s. For his first two years he didn’t start full-time, but in his last six years he started every game he played, establishing a reputation as not only the best center in the league, but one of the best to ever play the position. Tragically, he suffered a terrible leg injury during the 1987 season, forcing his early retirement at the age of 30.
Stephenson has become legendary, at least among me and the writers at PFF, for the extraordinarily high level of play he brought to the center position during his relatively short tenure. Bear Bryant, the legendary Alabama coach, called Stephenson the best player he ever coached.
The center’s impact can be subtle: he’s responsible for many aspects of line play beyond blocking, such as line adjustments, helping the other linemen with their assignments, some audibles, and, of course, snapping the ball. As a result, it’s usually hard to point at a statistic and claim that it shows how well a center is playing. With Stephenson it’s easy: for the six seasons that he started, from 1982-1987, the Dolphins led the league in fewest sacks allowed every single year. (And lest you think this is a result of Dan Marino—who certainly played a role—recall that Marino was drafted in 1983, the year after this streak started.) Admittedly, there was certainly other talent on the line; this streak continued for three years after Stephenson’s retirement, as the Dolphins set an all-time record at nine straight seasons. (Marino actually does deserve credit for these later seasons.) But there’s little question that Stephenson was instrumental in establishing the legacy of great pass-protecting O-lines and allowing the young Marino to develop un-sacked.
Center is an extremely cerebral position, at which experience and football IQ play a higher role than at any other position besides quarterback. It’s a hard position to play for someone who hasn’t played it before. I’m therefore choosing Stephenson, who played center almost exclusively, over a more versatile athlete. On defense, Stephenson will be my second defensive tackle; I don’t expect him to dominate like Jones, since he’s not the same level of athlete, but he’ll do fine. Finally, Stephenson will of course be my long snapper, since he’s by far the most qualified player on the roster for that role.
JJ Watt: What is there to say about JJ Watt? Seriously, what? I’ve said it all before. Starting in his second year, Watt has done things that I’ve never seen another defensive player do. At worst, he’s the third best defensive end of all time, after Reggie White and Bruce Smith. At best, he’s the greatest defensive player in league history, a singular force of domination, both unstoppable and unmatched.
Watt started off his career with a slow year, the only one he’s ever had. His sophomore year in 2012 was one of the greatest defensive seasons of all time: he led the league in sacks with 20.5, batted down more passes than any defensive lineman in history, set an all-time record for tackles for loss (TFL), and annihilated every advanced stat that so much as considered him, from PFF’s grades to AdvancedNFLStats’s Expected Points Added to FootballOutsiders’s Defeats. Watt easily won Defensive Player of the Year and was in the conversation for MVP, although it stupidly went to Adrian Peterson.
Watt’s third year saw him “regress” a little, at least in regards to traditional statistics, although some sources had his performance as on par or even better than his 2012 season. His fourth year, Watt put up an unprecedented second 20+ sack season, recording 20.5 for the second time. Again, this is something that no one, from DeMarcus Ware to Reggie White to Lawrence Taylor himself, ever achieved. JJ Watt did it when he was 25. Watt won his second DPOY award, becoming only the seventh player to win the award multiple times, after Joe Greene, Lawrence Taylor (who won it thrice), Mike Singletary, Bruce Smith, Reggie White, and Ray Lewis.
This past season Watt played injured for much of the year, but he nevertheless led the league in sacks and most advanced stats and took home his third DPOY, making him the second player to win three awards (after Taylor).
What makes Watt so great? First, he has the most well-rounded game of any defender I’ve ever seen. He’s clearly an elite pass-rusher, despite the fact that he plays many of his snaps as a 3-4 defensive end, a position that doesn’t traditionally get many sacks. But he’s also equally dominant against the run, and he excels at knocking down passes. He’s the best I’ve ever seen at getting off blocks and penetrating the offense. He’s incredibly versatile, playing about 45% of his snaps at 5-tech, 30% from 3-4 tech, and a little less than 20% at the uber-wide 9-tech [pff graph]. His profile matches fairly closely with Michael Bennett, who actually plays more snaps on the interior of the DL than Watt, and fewer on the extreme edge.
It’s this versatility that makes me comfortable playing Watt at OLB. It may seem strange to start a 6’5, 289-pound linebacker, but Watt has the insane athleticism and the versatility to make it work. On offense, I’m playing him at right tackle; he’s proven to be such a brilliant, natural, dominant athlete that if anyone can quickly pick up the intricacies of OL play, it’s him.
Lawrence Taylor: I’ve already covered a lot of what makes Taylor so legendary, but it’s worth repeating. Taylor was drafted in 1981 and immediately notched 9.5 sacks. The next year, the NFL started officially recording sacks. Admittedly, a lot of credit for this change is owed to Mark Gastineau and Joe Klecko, who put up 20 sacks and 20.5 sacks, respectively, in ‘81. But we’ll stick with the legend.
Taylor might be the most influential player in modern NFL history. He’s almost singlehandedly responsible for the invention of the modern blitzing OLB, or at least he’s the first to make it into a real threat. As mentioned in the Walter Jones writeup above, Taylor is also responsible for the creation of the modern left tackle position by forcing the offense to account for the pressure he brought to the blind-side.
Taylor famously first started blitzing the blind side against the instruction of his coach (then Defensive Coordinator), the great Bill Parcells. Parcells instructed Taylor to drop back into coverage, but Taylor blitzed instead. During practices, and eventually games, this happened again and again, until finally Parcells gave in and let Taylor blitz as much as he wanted.
From that time on, Taylor struck fear into the heart of quarterbacks. One QB, panicking that he couldn’t find Taylor before the snap, called a time-out, only to find that Taylor was sitting on the bench. Legendary coach Joe Gibbs created the two tight end offense and the h-back position in order to block Taylor, after discovering that the traditional method of blocking blitzing linebackers with running backs was insufficient to slow Taylor’s onslaught. Other coaches started using linemen to block Taylor.
Taylor and the great Giants defenses of the ‘80s he led won two Super Bowls, one in 1986 (to top off one of the greatest defensive seasons ever), and another in 1990. Taylor himself won three DPOYs, the most ever (since tied by Watt). He even won MVP in 1986, becoming one of only two defensive players to ever win it (along with Alan Page in 1971), and the only one to win it unanimously. Taylor is now considered, with good reason, the greatest defensive player ever.
On offense, I put Taylor at tight end not because of any particular pass-catching ability—his nine career interceptions, while respectable for a pass-rushing OLB, are not impressive—but rather because I think he’ll do a fine job blocking, and may be able to catch a few passes. Remember, we already have some amazing receivers, so that’s not a huge concern at this point.
Patrick Willis: Willis may seem like a strange choice for this roster. After all, although he is certainly a superb MLB and one of the best I’ve seen, he’s not in the conversation for GOAT at the position. He’s here for three reasons: first, I think he’s one of the best athletes to ever play the position; second, he’s an amazingly strong person with an incredible story, and I just like him; and third, beyond being a great linebacker, he was also an excellent high school running back.
His senior year of high school, Willis carried the ball 194 times for 2,167 yards (that’s 11.2 yards per carry) and 30 TDs. Those numbers look good even in comparison to legit NFL running backs. More importantly, the offensive line I’ve assembled, while it won’t be particularly great at pass-blocking, should absolutely crush anyone while run-blocking. Jones is one of the greatest run-blocking tackles ever; Stephenson, while he’s better at pass-blocking, was also a solid run-blocker; White and Smith are strong enough to be effective at guard; and Watt is such a gifted athlete that he should be able to figure out right tackle. If your offensive line can open up holes, you don’t have to be a great running back to run through them.
But of course Willis is best at middle linebacker. Prior to his early retirement, Willis looked on track to make the Hall of Fame on an easy first ballot. He made Pro Bowls in each of his first seven years, being named First Team All-Pro in five of those. Then, after an injury afflicted him during the 2014 season, Willis abruptly retired. Suddenly, he was a borderline Hall of Famer at best, and he’d never put together the kind of season that, say, Ray Lewis did in 2000, ‘03, or ‘08. But the advantage Willis brings at running back makes up for the small gap between peak Lewis and peak Willis at linebacker.
Reggie White: White is best known for three things. First, being the single most dominant defensive lineman to ever play, although Watt is taking a run at that title. Second, for being the first high-profile free agent in the first year of NFL free agency; White switched teams from Philadelphia to Green Bay, and despite being 32 years old, he went on to put up another six dominant seasons. Third, White’s known for his Evangelical Christianity, as well as his racism and homophobia. For this final reason, I’d actually prefer not to have White on my team, but when it comes to defensive ends, there’s really no one better.
White played fifteen seasons, of which thirteen were great, and the other two were just good. The “good” seasons include a 13-sack rookie effort and a 5.5-sack final season at the age of 39. Amazingly, every season in between those two was far better. Most notably, White put up 21 sacks in only 12 games during the strike-shortened 1987 season, a rate which prorates to 28 sacks over a full 16-game season. In each of his first nine seasons, White put up at least 11 sacks; his 198.0 career sacks is second to Bruce Smith’s 200 only because White played his first two years of professional football for the USFL, putting up 23.5 total sacks as a member of the Memphis Showboats.
I’m playing White at guard on offense. The guard position requires some skill, but it’s much easier to play than tackle or center. White is strong enough to run-block and I think he can be taught to defend the bull-rush.
Bruce Smith: If Reggie White is the greatest defensive end of all time, Smith is a close second. He played 19 years, from the age of 22 to 40, and totaled an NFL-record 200 sacks, two more than White. (For comparison, third place belongs to Kevin Greene, with 160. White and Smith are on another plane.) Smith’s sack output is made even more impressive by the fact that he played most of his career as a DE in a 3-4 defense, a position that usually has very little pass-rush production.
During Smith’s 15-year prime, he broke 10 sacks 13 times, including a career-best 19.0 sacks in 1990. That season the Bills made the Super Bowl for the first of four straight appearances. In ‘90, ‘92, and ‘93, Smith was an integral part of the Bills’ defenses, which averaged 16.4 points allowed per game. In 1991, when Smith missed 11 games due to injury, the Bills’ defense lagged, allowing 19.9 PPG. And while that’s not quite the same degree of impact that the great Bob Sanders had on the Colts’ defenses, it’s still impressive.
I’m starting Smith, like White, at guard on offense. Again, he’s strong enough to run-block, and he’s hopefully gifted enough to defend against the bull-rush.
Team Analysis:
That's the team I've settled on, and although it probably can be improved, I've spent enough hours on it to be satisfied with it. But before I wrap up this article, I want to consider what the team might look like on each side of the ball.
On offense, our big strength is the passing game. Wilson is an elite passer, and Moss and Johnson are both exceptional pass-catchers. Deion should also be competent at the position, although I have my doubts about Willis and Taylor as receivers. But Wilson's other big strength is his elusiveness and mobility, which will come in handy given the weakness of our offensive line.
Jones and Stephenson are exceptional linemen, but White, Smith, and Watt are not. It's possible that they'll pick up some skills along the way, but they'll also allow a lot of pressures without a doubt. Fortunately, Wilson is used to playing with terrible OLs, especially at the guard and RT positions. Our running game (outside of Wilson) is probably also not going to be very productive, but I have hope that our giant, incredibly athletic DL filling in on the line will be able to pick up the relatively simple art of run-blocking. If all else fails, we can slot the best DL/OL at LG and run every play to the left.
Our defensive line is interesting. White and Smith are obviously going to dominate anyone, but I'm not sure how Jones and Stephenson will fill in at DT. They're both large enough to succeed at the position, certainly, and they have the athleticism to be solid players, but it's all about whether they pick up the necessary skills to hold the gaps. (I'm confident that we'll get enough pressure and penetration from our DEs and OLBs to make up for a lack of pressure on the internal line.)
Our linebackers, on that note, are exceptional. Taylor is obviously an all-time great; Willis is, if not quite in that category, still a Hall of Fame level player; and Watt, albeit not actually an OLB, will be elite at the position.
Our secondary is more of a question mark, as we're starting three offensive players at our four positions. Deion is the perfect cornerback for this situation, however, as he's renowned for his ability to blanket one side of the field, allowing our other players to focus their attention on the opposite side. What's more, I genuinely think Moss will be an elite free safety; he has the instincts and the physical skills, and I'm optimistic that he'll be able to pick up the tackling skills (not that he'll allow too many completions). Johnson also has the skills needed to be at least an okay cornerback; he can track the ball and he's certainly athletic enough, but cornerback is such a skill-heavy position that it's not clear either way.
Our one big weakness in the secondary is Wilson at safety. But there are three reasons I'm comfortable with the choice. First, we absolutely need a true quarterback to start on offense, and I don't think there are many QBs who would be better on defense than Wilson. Second, Wilson has underrated athleticism, strength, speed, and durability, all of which will help him at the strong safety position. And third, SS is a relatively non-crucial position on defense. That is to say that Wilson won't be specifically required to do any role, like how a CB needs to cover WRs, or a FS needs to cover deep routes. We can basically use Wilson as a roaming safety, covering slow guys if needed and helping with the run. He might also find success as a shot-caller for the defense, using his deep knowledge of offensive strategy to his advantage as a safety.
Overall, although we have some weaknesses, I'm very happy with the strengths that this team brings. What's more, I'm completely confident that my team would utterly crush CHFF's 11-man team into the ground. And in the end, isn't that what really matters?
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Future-Proofing the Lakers
Introduction:
Kobe Bryant's long, storied, and glorious career has finally come to a fitting end: dropping 60 points and dragging his team to a victory over the Utah Jazz. Prior to that, Kobe was basically on a perma-contract; you don't cut a guy like that, ever, no matter how old and beat-up he is, so $25 million of our cap space was permanently set aside for Kobe. But now that he's retired, and the Lakers' payroll is starting to clear off, we can talk about the future.
But first let's talk about the past. The Lakers are one of the greatest and most storied franchises not just in basketball history, but in sports history. We've won 16 championships and appeared in the Finals a staggering 31 times, stretching from 1949 to 2010 and featuring at least one appearance in every intervening decade. We've missed the playoffs only eight times in franchise history: Once in 1958, twice in the mid-70s, once in 1994, once in 2005, and in each of the past three seasons. This has been the longest dry stretch of the franchise's existence (although we have gone longer without winning a championship on several occasions). What's worse, the team doesn't have a superstar like George Mikan, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, or Kobe Bryant to carry it through; we're building from scratch. That means the playoffs, and the Finals, may not come again as soon as we'd like.
Lakers fans are trying to keep hope alive. After all, it's not by chance that the Lakers have been this great over the years, and the longest we've ever gone without having one of the above-mentioned players is six years, from 1991-97. (Although we technically had Magic back for a brief time in '96, he wasn't really Magic.) The fans have faith that our front office will reload. After all, we wouldn't be in such a bad position if it hadn't been for the unethical and unjustified veto of the Chris Paul trade back in 2011. Had it not been for "basketball reasons" and the whining of the hypocrite Dan Gilbert, we might have spent the past five years watching a Lakers team starring Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and an aging Kobe. So our front office, and especially our brilliant GM Mitch Kupchak, are still very much in control of the franchise's direction. Three down years after getting completely screwed over by the league aren't exactly unexpected.
But even if we do manage to reload on talent, we're also playing in a Western Conference on par with the strongest conferences in history. Let's run down the talent. First, we've got the Golden State Warriors, who just completed a record-setting 73-win season; who look to be on the verge of sealing their second straight championship; who star two of the best shooters the league has ever seen, one of whom is Steph Curry, the back-to-back MVP who's easily the most gifted shooter (and one of the most gifted players) in league history; and who somehow still only have an average age of 27, with their stars trending even younger: Curry is 27, Thompson's 25, and Green's 25. Then we have the San Antonio Spurs, who lowkey finished seventh all-time in wins last year, and who star another top-five player in Kawhi Leonard, as well as a top-five all-time coach in Greg Popovich (better known as the coach of my alma mater, Pomona College). The Spurs are a little less scary, since a lot of their contributors are aging (including Pop), but their consistency makes them, in a sense, more scary, since they've won at least 50 games every season this millennium, including the shortened 2012 season (that's equivalent to 62 wins in an 82-game season, if you're wondering).
The third-biggest threat, at least for now, are the Oklahoma City Thunder, better known as Clay Bennett's bastardized version of the once-honorable Sonics. OKC has been painfully losing in the playoffs a lot recently, which makes most Seattle people (myself included) deliriously happy, but they also currently have two of the five best players in the league, in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. Durant is a wild-card, though; he's a free agent, and if he leaves, the team will regress quite a lot (aka will turn into a slightly better Raptors, who in the West are a five seed). Fourth are the LA Clippers, a silly poser franchise that doesn't realize there's already a team in LA, nor that Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, and DeAndre Jordan isn't a particularly inspiring core.
Beyond the four big boys are solid teams, like the Blazers, the Mavericks (who I can't imagine sticking around very long once Dirk's gone), the Grizzlies, and the Rockets (AKA the Hatefest, since Dwight Howard and James Harden are maybe my two least-favorite non-Celtics in the league). Then are the up-and-comers, like the Pelicans (if they can figure out how to pair Anthony Davis with someone better than Eric Gordon, Tyreke Evans, or Jrue Holiday) and the Timberwolves, who are on the upswing, with two incredibly talented, incredibly young stars in Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns (who are 21 and 20 years old, respectively). Then you have the garbage teams (Utah, Sacramento, Denver, and Phoenix), and then you have the Lakers. That's what we're competing with. That's the incredibly stacked West I'm talking about.
Which brings me to my point: How can the Lakers possibly hope to compete with such a strong conference, including several teams that look like they'll be top contenders for the foreseeable future? There are really two ways: in free agency, and in the draft.
Free Agency: This is how everyone wrongly assumes the Lakers get all their talent. In fact we've only ever signed two big free agents: Jamaal Wilkes and Shaq. But many Lakers fans are enjoying the pipe dream that maybe, just maybe, Kevin Durant will leave Oklahoma to come out to Los Angeles and take up Kobe's torch. There's a lot of what is effectively astrology pointing at this. First, it's LA. And it's Oklahoma City. This isn't a hard choice. Second, the Lakers are up-and-coming (hopefully), and the Thunder are a stolen and cursed franchise which has struggled in the playoffs (and by "struggled" I mean "just beat a top-ten team of all time and lost to another"). Third, if Durant really wants to be great, LA is absolutely the best place to do it, especially now, when Lakers fans are chomping at the bit for another superstar to worship. Fourth, if Durant does come to the Lakers, the team suddenly looks much more legit (I'll outline the exact roster possibilities in a moment), meaning it's not like he'd be joining a bottom-feeder (even though he kinda would). Fifth, we have a lot of money and do not fear the luxury tax, so we'll pay him maxes forever and--more importantly, and this is the thing people fail to realize about stingy teams--we'll pay to surround him with as much top-level talent as we can. OKC won't (cough cough Harden trade cough). That being said, he can easily join any stacked team and play with superstars. If he comes to LA, it's because he wants to build his own legacy the hard way. Most players won't do this. It's a lot of weight to take on your shoulders, following the legacies of Mikan, Baylor, West, Chamberlain, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, and Kobe. We'll see if Durant wants that kind of a challenge.
The Draft: This is how the Lakers get about half their talent (see the same post I linked above), and we have a great opportunity to draft a future stud this year. We have the #2 pick in a draft with exactly two incredible prospects: Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram. The Philadelphia 76ers have the first pick, and the consensus is that they'll take Simmons and the Lakers will take Ingram, but regardless I'll discuss both players and suggest potential looks the team could have with either.
Ben Simmons is somewhat of a unique prospect, both in his strengths and his weaknesses. He's 6'10, with a 6'11 wingspan, both of which are decent for a PF. He is strong and somewhere between very and extremely athletic, depending on who you ask, and he certainly has the body to be an NBA star. His big draw is his ability to handle the ball and distribute; he has great handles and is a great passer, especially on the fastbreak. He's also a strong finisher and an elite rebounder. By all accounts, he's extremely unselfish and a good person.
His glaring weakness is his jump-shot. It's virtually non-existent, leading some to speculate that he might even be shooting with the wrong hand. Which means that despite Simmons's ability to run the offense and distribute as a LeBron/Pippen-style point forward, he's absolutely no threat to shoot from three, or even the midrange. He's been able to get away with this weakness in high school and college by being bigger, stronger, and more athletic than almost everyone, but I have to imagine NBA defenders will do a better job preventing him from getting to the basket. I've seen some believers claim that not having a jump-shot is a "fixable problem," that Simmons has the work ethic to develop his shot and become an effective shooter in the NBA. Now, while I concede that it is possible to develop from a weak shooter into a dangerous one, I have two major concerns when it comes to Simmons's case: First, this evolution, weak-to-strong shooter, is very rare. And second, it mostly happens among players who already have at least a decent jump-shot; Simmons's jump-shot is not just weak, it's broken.
Brandon Ingram is the polar opposite of Simmons. Ingram is tall and incredibly long; at 6'9, and with a 7'3 wingspan, he has the length of a PF or a C. (Hilariously, even though both Simmons and Ingram have exactly the same measured height--6'9.5" in shoes--Simmons is generally listed at 6'10 and Ingram at 6'9, presumably because Simmons is supposed to be a PF and Ingram an SF.) But his natural position, and the one he'll play in the NBA, is small forward, a position at which he looks like a slightly-less-well-off man's Kevin Durant. Ingram is an exceptional shooter and a great scorer all-around. He's not quite the athlete that Simmons is, but with his length and skills, he doesn't have to be. Ingram's big weakness is his build; he's considered very skinny and they say he'll need to bulk up in order to succeed in the NBA. Of course, they've also been saying that about Durant his entire career.
From a Lakers perspective, Ingram is clearly the better fit for the team. Simmons requires spacing at the 1, 2, and 3, and the Lakers aren't a particularly great shooting team. We also already have a PF who can't shoot in Julius Randle, which is particularly annoying in the case that we get Simmons, since neither of them has the length to play center, and neither has the shooting ability to play SF. Even in a hypothetical positionless offense, having two forwards who can't shoot and can't play center is a bad position to be in (no pun intended).
Ingram, on the other hand, is an absolutely gorgeous fit. He has elite-tier shooting, with range that easily extends to the NBA 3-point line (he shot 41% from three in college and might approach those numbers in the pros), and he perfectly fills the gaping hole at SF that the Lakers have had basically forever. He's a quiet, team-oriented player who doesn't need the ball to function and who fits beautifully as a primary scorer and floor-spacer in the modern, three-happy NBA. You couldn't invent a better fit for the Lakers. Well, you could, but it would be Kevin Durant.
We're in the surprisingly fortunate position of picking second, meaning we don't actually have to make this decision. Philadelphia picks first, and all indications are that they'll be picking Simmons. So with any luck, we'll be sitting pretty with Ingram at #2 slotting in perfectly at SF.
Now that we've discussed the Big Three prospects--Durant, Simmons, and Ingram--let's look at what the Lakers' team actually looks like at the moment.
The Current Lakers: I'll just list all the players currently on contract for the '17 season. Keep in mind that the salary cap is going to be around $92 million.
Lou Williams: $7 million
Nick Young: $5.4 million
D'Angelo Russell: $5.3 million
Julius Randle: $3.3 million
Larry Nance Jr.: $1.2 million
Anthony Brown: $0.9 million
Total: $23.1 million. (Note that Brandon Bass has a player option for about $3 million, but all indications are that he'll opt out of it.)
So we've only used about 25% of our salary cap. Then there are Jordan Clarkson, Tarik Black, and Marcelo Huertas, all of whom are RFAs, giving us the ability to match any contract they're offered. Finally, Roy Hibbert, Ryan Kelly, Robert Sacre, and Metta World Peace are all UFAs (as, technically, is Kobe, but he'll stay retired).
So what does our roster look like at the moment? Assuming we keep a few of our free agents, it looks something like this:
PG: D'Angelo Russell, Marcelo Huertas
SG: Jordan Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nick Young
SF: (Vacancy), Anthony Brown
PF: Julius Randle, Larry Nance Jr., Ryan Kelly
C: (Vacancy), Tarik Black
As it is, that's a bad roster. Russell, Clarkson, and Randle are all rising talents, but none of them are there yet. We also have absolutely no one to start at SF and C; Brown and Black aren't close to being ready to start, Kobe's gone, Hibbert probably won't come back, and Metta is well past the time when he could be a real contributor. Hopefully, the draft will help fill one of those holes; with Ingram slotted in at the starting 3 position, our team suddenly looks much better. Notice, again, how there isn't a starting spot for Simmons, which means either he or Randle, who is one of our three starter-quality players, would be either riding the bench or clogging the floor.
Now let's talk about free agents.
Interesting Free Agents:
Kevin Durant is obviously the most exciting one, although I will once more characterize him coming to LA as a pipe dream. It's also worth noting that Durant and Ingram would play very much the same role for the team, which might lead you to think that they wouldn't both fit on the roster. But Ingram's skillset (great shooter, doesn't need the ball) is much more flexible than Simmons's (terrible shooter, great ball-handler/passer/rebounder, but needs the ball to function), so Durant and Ingram could conceivably play together as 2/3 or even 3/4. And of course getting a player like Durant is a much clearer step to contention than getting Simmons, so even if there is overlap, it's absolutely worth it. If we do somehow manage to wrangle Durant, we get one of the most efficient and dangerous scorers in NBA history, with the length to shoot over anyone, the athleticism to play solid defense, and a huge chip on his shoulder. But, again, pipe dream.
Joakim Noah is a good rebounder, a great defender, and a nice fit for us at our vacant center position. While he's not much to speak of on the offensive end (besides his rebounding), and his age at 31 means he won't be able to grow with the team, he's still a great choice at our weakest position.
Al Horford is an underrated option at center. He's a solid defender, a good passer, and just this past year developed impressive range, shooting 49% from the long midrange and 34% from three. Having that kind of range on our center would open the floor up a lot on offense for Julius Randle, and would also make Simmons a much stronger option if he were to fall to us. Horford's downside is his age; although he's barely 30, he's still not the guy who's going to be around for the next decade, as Russell/Clarkson/Randle may be. Still, he's still a very capable player and should remain so for the next several years, making him a great choice for us right now. The other hidden problem here is that Horford will probably prefer to go to a contender, but there's nothing we can do about that.
Luol Deng is an option at SF basically if we don't get Ingram or Durant. While he's no longer the two-way stud, Scottie Pippen-lite player he once was, he's still certainly a starter-quality SF, which we desperately need.
Bismack Biyombo is another option at C. He's young, with lots of room to grow, but he also hasn't quite proven himself to the extent of the other centers I've listed.
Hassan Whiteside is an intriguing prospect. Whiteside is listed at 6'11, but his wingspan is a staggering, unfathomable 7'7, one of the longest on record in NBA history. This length makes him a monster on the glass, a strong offensive presence, and an extraordinary shot-blocker. Whiteside averaged 3.7 blocks per game this year, but more impressive than that number is the three triple-doubles he put up, with 10+ points, rebounds, and blocks. Whiteside has had four such triple-doubles on four total occasions over his career, all in the past two years. For comparison, only five players have more P-R-B triple-doubles than Whiteside. Three of them, Dikembe Mutombo, Hakeem Olajuwon, and David Robinson, are all-time great, Hall of Fame centers who played long careers. Two of them, Shawn Bradley and Mark Eaton, are respectively 7'6 and 7'4, massive freaks of nature, who also played long careers (although they got their P-R-B triple-doubles in a short span each). Then comes Whiteside, who's still only 26 years old and is only beginning to come into his own as a player. Whiteside is the absolute dream at center, whose rim protection, rebounding, and overall presence in the paint would do wonders to cover any defensive deficiencies the Lakers may or may not (but definitely do) have. As for any questions of maturity, all I can say is that talent like this doesn't come around often, and it's not like he's a Robert Upshaw-level risk.
Lakers Final Roster Projections:
It's obviously hard to predict what's going to happen this offseason. We can't even know for certain which RFAs the Lakers will resign, or which prospect will fall to us in the draft, much less competing with 29 other teams for Durant, or a dozen other teams for each of the centers I want. But while this roster is certainly flexible, I also think it's a reasonable estimation of what the team might look like at the start of the season.
PG: D'Angelo Russell, Marcelo Huertas
SG: Jordan Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nick Young
SF: Brandon Ingram, Anthony Brown
PF: Julius Randle, Larry Nance Jr., Ryan Kelly
C: Hassan Whiteside, Tarik Black
Possible substitutions include: Simmons instead of Ingram, with potentially Deng or someone else starting at 3 and Randle on the bench; Noah, Horford, Biyombo, or even someone else starting at center; Kevin Durant at 3, pushing Ingram to the bench (or filling the vacancy in the case we get Simmons); and any number of depth players at any position who might end up changing. Most notably, I'd love to see Nick Young on a different team (I think he's very bad), and some veteran depth somewhere on the team wouldn't be out of place.
As for our prospects with this roster: Barring the improbabilities of Durant coming to LA, Simmons or Ingram turning into a rookie phenom, or Russell and Clarkson suddenly becoming superstars, I don't think this Lakers team is going to be contending in the West. I'd be pleasantly surprised if we snuck into an 8th seed and made the playoffs. But this is how a dynasty starts, with young talent figuring out how to play together. Yes, the Lakers are in the midst of one of the darkest stretches in franchise history, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Russell, Ingram, and Randle may be the Big Three of the future. The Lakers will be back.
Kobe Bryant's long, storied, and glorious career has finally come to a fitting end: dropping 60 points and dragging his team to a victory over the Utah Jazz. Prior to that, Kobe was basically on a perma-contract; you don't cut a guy like that, ever, no matter how old and beat-up he is, so $25 million of our cap space was permanently set aside for Kobe. But now that he's retired, and the Lakers' payroll is starting to clear off, we can talk about the future.
But first let's talk about the past. The Lakers are one of the greatest and most storied franchises not just in basketball history, but in sports history. We've won 16 championships and appeared in the Finals a staggering 31 times, stretching from 1949 to 2010 and featuring at least one appearance in every intervening decade. We've missed the playoffs only eight times in franchise history: Once in 1958, twice in the mid-70s, once in 1994, once in 2005, and in each of the past three seasons. This has been the longest dry stretch of the franchise's existence (although we have gone longer without winning a championship on several occasions). What's worse, the team doesn't have a superstar like George Mikan, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal, or Kobe Bryant to carry it through; we're building from scratch. That means the playoffs, and the Finals, may not come again as soon as we'd like.
Lakers fans are trying to keep hope alive. After all, it's not by chance that the Lakers have been this great over the years, and the longest we've ever gone without having one of the above-mentioned players is six years, from 1991-97. (Although we technically had Magic back for a brief time in '96, he wasn't really Magic.) The fans have faith that our front office will reload. After all, we wouldn't be in such a bad position if it hadn't been for the unethical and unjustified veto of the Chris Paul trade back in 2011. Had it not been for "basketball reasons" and the whining of the hypocrite Dan Gilbert, we might have spent the past five years watching a Lakers team starring Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, and an aging Kobe. So our front office, and especially our brilliant GM Mitch Kupchak, are still very much in control of the franchise's direction. Three down years after getting completely screwed over by the league aren't exactly unexpected.
But even if we do manage to reload on talent, we're also playing in a Western Conference on par with the strongest conferences in history. Let's run down the talent. First, we've got the Golden State Warriors, who just completed a record-setting 73-win season; who look to be on the verge of sealing their second straight championship; who star two of the best shooters the league has ever seen, one of whom is Steph Curry, the back-to-back MVP who's easily the most gifted shooter (and one of the most gifted players) in league history; and who somehow still only have an average age of 27, with their stars trending even younger: Curry is 27, Thompson's 25, and Green's 25. Then we have the San Antonio Spurs, who lowkey finished seventh all-time in wins last year, and who star another top-five player in Kawhi Leonard, as well as a top-five all-time coach in Greg Popovich (better known as the coach of my alma mater, Pomona College). The Spurs are a little less scary, since a lot of their contributors are aging (including Pop), but their consistency makes them, in a sense, more scary, since they've won at least 50 games every season this millennium, including the shortened 2012 season (that's equivalent to 62 wins in an 82-game season, if you're wondering).
The third-biggest threat, at least for now, are the Oklahoma City Thunder, better known as Clay Bennett's bastardized version of the once-honorable Sonics. OKC has been painfully losing in the playoffs a lot recently, which makes most Seattle people (myself included) deliriously happy, but they also currently have two of the five best players in the league, in Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook. Durant is a wild-card, though; he's a free agent, and if he leaves, the team will regress quite a lot (aka will turn into a slightly better Raptors, who in the West are a five seed). Fourth are the LA Clippers, a silly poser franchise that doesn't realize there's already a team in LA, nor that Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, and DeAndre Jordan isn't a particularly inspiring core.
Beyond the four big boys are solid teams, like the Blazers, the Mavericks (who I can't imagine sticking around very long once Dirk's gone), the Grizzlies, and the Rockets (AKA the Hatefest, since Dwight Howard and James Harden are maybe my two least-favorite non-Celtics in the league). Then are the up-and-comers, like the Pelicans (if they can figure out how to pair Anthony Davis with someone better than Eric Gordon, Tyreke Evans, or Jrue Holiday) and the Timberwolves, who are on the upswing, with two incredibly talented, incredibly young stars in Andrew Wiggins and Karl-Anthony Towns (who are 21 and 20 years old, respectively). Then you have the garbage teams (Utah, Sacramento, Denver, and Phoenix), and then you have the Lakers. That's what we're competing with. That's the incredibly stacked West I'm talking about.
Which brings me to my point: How can the Lakers possibly hope to compete with such a strong conference, including several teams that look like they'll be top contenders for the foreseeable future? There are really two ways: in free agency, and in the draft.
Free Agency: This is how everyone wrongly assumes the Lakers get all their talent. In fact we've only ever signed two big free agents: Jamaal Wilkes and Shaq. But many Lakers fans are enjoying the pipe dream that maybe, just maybe, Kevin Durant will leave Oklahoma to come out to Los Angeles and take up Kobe's torch. There's a lot of what is effectively astrology pointing at this. First, it's LA. And it's Oklahoma City. This isn't a hard choice. Second, the Lakers are up-and-coming (hopefully), and the Thunder are a stolen and cursed franchise which has struggled in the playoffs (and by "struggled" I mean "just beat a top-ten team of all time and lost to another"). Third, if Durant really wants to be great, LA is absolutely the best place to do it, especially now, when Lakers fans are chomping at the bit for another superstar to worship. Fourth, if Durant does come to the Lakers, the team suddenly looks much more legit (I'll outline the exact roster possibilities in a moment), meaning it's not like he'd be joining a bottom-feeder (even though he kinda would). Fifth, we have a lot of money and do not fear the luxury tax, so we'll pay him maxes forever and--more importantly, and this is the thing people fail to realize about stingy teams--we'll pay to surround him with as much top-level talent as we can. OKC won't (cough cough Harden trade cough). That being said, he can easily join any stacked team and play with superstars. If he comes to LA, it's because he wants to build his own legacy the hard way. Most players won't do this. It's a lot of weight to take on your shoulders, following the legacies of Mikan, Baylor, West, Chamberlain, Kareem, Magic, Shaq, and Kobe. We'll see if Durant wants that kind of a challenge.
The Draft: This is how the Lakers get about half their talent (see the same post I linked above), and we have a great opportunity to draft a future stud this year. We have the #2 pick in a draft with exactly two incredible prospects: Ben Simmons and Brandon Ingram. The Philadelphia 76ers have the first pick, and the consensus is that they'll take Simmons and the Lakers will take Ingram, but regardless I'll discuss both players and suggest potential looks the team could have with either.
Ben Simmons is somewhat of a unique prospect, both in his strengths and his weaknesses. He's 6'10, with a 6'11 wingspan, both of which are decent for a PF. He is strong and somewhere between very and extremely athletic, depending on who you ask, and he certainly has the body to be an NBA star. His big draw is his ability to handle the ball and distribute; he has great handles and is a great passer, especially on the fastbreak. He's also a strong finisher and an elite rebounder. By all accounts, he's extremely unselfish and a good person.
His glaring weakness is his jump-shot. It's virtually non-existent, leading some to speculate that he might even be shooting with the wrong hand. Which means that despite Simmons's ability to run the offense and distribute as a LeBron/Pippen-style point forward, he's absolutely no threat to shoot from three, or even the midrange. He's been able to get away with this weakness in high school and college by being bigger, stronger, and more athletic than almost everyone, but I have to imagine NBA defenders will do a better job preventing him from getting to the basket. I've seen some believers claim that not having a jump-shot is a "fixable problem," that Simmons has the work ethic to develop his shot and become an effective shooter in the NBA. Now, while I concede that it is possible to develop from a weak shooter into a dangerous one, I have two major concerns when it comes to Simmons's case: First, this evolution, weak-to-strong shooter, is very rare. And second, it mostly happens among players who already have at least a decent jump-shot; Simmons's jump-shot is not just weak, it's broken.
Brandon Ingram is the polar opposite of Simmons. Ingram is tall and incredibly long; at 6'9, and with a 7'3 wingspan, he has the length of a PF or a C. (Hilariously, even though both Simmons and Ingram have exactly the same measured height--6'9.5" in shoes--Simmons is generally listed at 6'10 and Ingram at 6'9, presumably because Simmons is supposed to be a PF and Ingram an SF.) But his natural position, and the one he'll play in the NBA, is small forward, a position at which he looks like a slightly-less-well-off man's Kevin Durant. Ingram is an exceptional shooter and a great scorer all-around. He's not quite the athlete that Simmons is, but with his length and skills, he doesn't have to be. Ingram's big weakness is his build; he's considered very skinny and they say he'll need to bulk up in order to succeed in the NBA. Of course, they've also been saying that about Durant his entire career.
From a Lakers perspective, Ingram is clearly the better fit for the team. Simmons requires spacing at the 1, 2, and 3, and the Lakers aren't a particularly great shooting team. We also already have a PF who can't shoot in Julius Randle, which is particularly annoying in the case that we get Simmons, since neither of them has the length to play center, and neither has the shooting ability to play SF. Even in a hypothetical positionless offense, having two forwards who can't shoot and can't play center is a bad position to be in (no pun intended).
Ingram, on the other hand, is an absolutely gorgeous fit. He has elite-tier shooting, with range that easily extends to the NBA 3-point line (he shot 41% from three in college and might approach those numbers in the pros), and he perfectly fills the gaping hole at SF that the Lakers have had basically forever. He's a quiet, team-oriented player who doesn't need the ball to function and who fits beautifully as a primary scorer and floor-spacer in the modern, three-happy NBA. You couldn't invent a better fit for the Lakers. Well, you could, but it would be Kevin Durant.
We're in the surprisingly fortunate position of picking second, meaning we don't actually have to make this decision. Philadelphia picks first, and all indications are that they'll be picking Simmons. So with any luck, we'll be sitting pretty with Ingram at #2 slotting in perfectly at SF.
Now that we've discussed the Big Three prospects--Durant, Simmons, and Ingram--let's look at what the Lakers' team actually looks like at the moment.
The Current Lakers: I'll just list all the players currently on contract for the '17 season. Keep in mind that the salary cap is going to be around $92 million.
Lou Williams: $7 million
Nick Young: $5.4 million
D'Angelo Russell: $5.3 million
Julius Randle: $3.3 million
Larry Nance Jr.: $1.2 million
Anthony Brown: $0.9 million
Total: $23.1 million. (Note that Brandon Bass has a player option for about $3 million, but all indications are that he'll opt out of it.)
So we've only used about 25% of our salary cap. Then there are Jordan Clarkson, Tarik Black, and Marcelo Huertas, all of whom are RFAs, giving us the ability to match any contract they're offered. Finally, Roy Hibbert, Ryan Kelly, Robert Sacre, and Metta World Peace are all UFAs (as, technically, is Kobe, but he'll stay retired).
So what does our roster look like at the moment? Assuming we keep a few of our free agents, it looks something like this:
PG: D'Angelo Russell, Marcelo Huertas
SG: Jordan Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nick Young
SF: (Vacancy), Anthony Brown
PF: Julius Randle, Larry Nance Jr., Ryan Kelly
C: (Vacancy), Tarik Black
As it is, that's a bad roster. Russell, Clarkson, and Randle are all rising talents, but none of them are there yet. We also have absolutely no one to start at SF and C; Brown and Black aren't close to being ready to start, Kobe's gone, Hibbert probably won't come back, and Metta is well past the time when he could be a real contributor. Hopefully, the draft will help fill one of those holes; with Ingram slotted in at the starting 3 position, our team suddenly looks much better. Notice, again, how there isn't a starting spot for Simmons, which means either he or Randle, who is one of our three starter-quality players, would be either riding the bench or clogging the floor.
Now let's talk about free agents.
Interesting Free Agents:
Kevin Durant is obviously the most exciting one, although I will once more characterize him coming to LA as a pipe dream. It's also worth noting that Durant and Ingram would play very much the same role for the team, which might lead you to think that they wouldn't both fit on the roster. But Ingram's skillset (great shooter, doesn't need the ball) is much more flexible than Simmons's (terrible shooter, great ball-handler/passer/rebounder, but needs the ball to function), so Durant and Ingram could conceivably play together as 2/3 or even 3/4. And of course getting a player like Durant is a much clearer step to contention than getting Simmons, so even if there is overlap, it's absolutely worth it. If we do somehow manage to wrangle Durant, we get one of the most efficient and dangerous scorers in NBA history, with the length to shoot over anyone, the athleticism to play solid defense, and a huge chip on his shoulder. But, again, pipe dream.
Joakim Noah is a good rebounder, a great defender, and a nice fit for us at our vacant center position. While he's not much to speak of on the offensive end (besides his rebounding), and his age at 31 means he won't be able to grow with the team, he's still a great choice at our weakest position.
Al Horford is an underrated option at center. He's a solid defender, a good passer, and just this past year developed impressive range, shooting 49% from the long midrange and 34% from three. Having that kind of range on our center would open the floor up a lot on offense for Julius Randle, and would also make Simmons a much stronger option if he were to fall to us. Horford's downside is his age; although he's barely 30, he's still not the guy who's going to be around for the next decade, as Russell/Clarkson/Randle may be. Still, he's still a very capable player and should remain so for the next several years, making him a great choice for us right now. The other hidden problem here is that Horford will probably prefer to go to a contender, but there's nothing we can do about that.
Luol Deng is an option at SF basically if we don't get Ingram or Durant. While he's no longer the two-way stud, Scottie Pippen-lite player he once was, he's still certainly a starter-quality SF, which we desperately need.
Bismack Biyombo is another option at C. He's young, with lots of room to grow, but he also hasn't quite proven himself to the extent of the other centers I've listed.
Hassan Whiteside is an intriguing prospect. Whiteside is listed at 6'11, but his wingspan is a staggering, unfathomable 7'7, one of the longest on record in NBA history. This length makes him a monster on the glass, a strong offensive presence, and an extraordinary shot-blocker. Whiteside averaged 3.7 blocks per game this year, but more impressive than that number is the three triple-doubles he put up, with 10+ points, rebounds, and blocks. Whiteside has had four such triple-doubles on four total occasions over his career, all in the past two years. For comparison, only five players have more P-R-B triple-doubles than Whiteside. Three of them, Dikembe Mutombo, Hakeem Olajuwon, and David Robinson, are all-time great, Hall of Fame centers who played long careers. Two of them, Shawn Bradley and Mark Eaton, are respectively 7'6 and 7'4, massive freaks of nature, who also played long careers (although they got their P-R-B triple-doubles in a short span each). Then comes Whiteside, who's still only 26 years old and is only beginning to come into his own as a player. Whiteside is the absolute dream at center, whose rim protection, rebounding, and overall presence in the paint would do wonders to cover any defensive deficiencies the Lakers may or may not (but definitely do) have. As for any questions of maturity, all I can say is that talent like this doesn't come around often, and it's not like he's a Robert Upshaw-level risk.
Lakers Final Roster Projections:
It's obviously hard to predict what's going to happen this offseason. We can't even know for certain which RFAs the Lakers will resign, or which prospect will fall to us in the draft, much less competing with 29 other teams for Durant, or a dozen other teams for each of the centers I want. But while this roster is certainly flexible, I also think it's a reasonable estimation of what the team might look like at the start of the season.
PG: D'Angelo Russell, Marcelo Huertas
SG: Jordan Clarkson, Lou Williams, Nick Young
SF: Brandon Ingram, Anthony Brown
PF: Julius Randle, Larry Nance Jr., Ryan Kelly
C: Hassan Whiteside, Tarik Black
Possible substitutions include: Simmons instead of Ingram, with potentially Deng or someone else starting at 3 and Randle on the bench; Noah, Horford, Biyombo, or even someone else starting at center; Kevin Durant at 3, pushing Ingram to the bench (or filling the vacancy in the case we get Simmons); and any number of depth players at any position who might end up changing. Most notably, I'd love to see Nick Young on a different team (I think he's very bad), and some veteran depth somewhere on the team wouldn't be out of place.
As for our prospects with this roster: Barring the improbabilities of Durant coming to LA, Simmons or Ingram turning into a rookie phenom, or Russell and Clarkson suddenly becoming superstars, I don't think this Lakers team is going to be contending in the West. I'd be pleasantly surprised if we snuck into an 8th seed and made the playoffs. But this is how a dynasty starts, with young talent figuring out how to play together. Yes, the Lakers are in the midst of one of the darkest stretches in franchise history, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. Russell, Ingram, and Randle may be the Big Three of the future. The Lakers will be back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)