Author Topic: Ty Lawson  (Read 8627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2009, 10:34:35 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
His shot being slow isn't going to be much of an issue, look at all the open looks Rondo gets in this offense, Lawson would get the same and would have plenty of time to take the open shot.

Exactly.  And if he doesn't have the open looks...that means that there are other players who are not being double-covered, and passing lanes are open.  That will solve the problem the C's had with both of their PG's this past off-season.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am as hessitant as anyone to ask a rookie to be part of the rotation, but there simply is not a ton of better options out there, they still have House if he can't handle the job, and he seems like a very mature ball player.

It might be worth a shot if the opportunity presents itself.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2009, 10:56:09 AM »

Offline bballdog384

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 631
  • Tommy Points: 65
  • Rondolope
If given the choice, I would rather have Jonny Flynn than Lawson. They are projected to go at about the same point in the draft, but I think Flynn has a lot more upside. They have about the same shot, but Flynn is incredibly athletic and is an amazing defender. 
"You can't play like a robot" -Coach Stevens

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2009, 11:02:17 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
If given the choice, I would rather have Jonny Flynn than Lawson. They are projected to go at about the same point in the draft, but I think Flynn has a lot more upside. They have about the same shot, but Flynn is incredibly athletic and is an amazing defender. 

Depends which mocks you trust.  I have a feeling Flynn will go in the lottery to mid first round, while Lawson looks to be slipping into the 20's, or even lower.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2009, 12:18:40 PM »

Offline thebirdman

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 242
  • Tommy Points: 31
Flynn is projected much higher than Lawson. There is no chance we can get him but if Lawson goes in the twenties he is a realistic possibility ...

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 12:38:11 PM »

Offline MBz

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2203
  • Tommy Points: 30
Flynn is a better player and we'd be foolish to say we wouldn't want Flynn over Lawson, but Flynn will not be available for the celtics to get.  Lawson's a ball player, he has the ability to be a very good defender with his quickness and strength, he just needs to learn how to put it all together.  If Lawson isn't available, I wouldn't mind them going after Jrue Holiday.  Yes, he is very young, but right now he has the ability to do what George Hill did in San Antonio, which is be a good defender from the start.  He is probably already a better defender then Gabe Pruitt, and I think he could help this team on the bench.
do it

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2009, 07:44:52 PM »

Offline StartOrien

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12961
  • Tommy Points: 1200
I feel better about Lawson because he seems more polished and I feel like he could join the team and make an immediate impact.

I like him because I feel like you know what to expect.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2009, 08:38:05 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Something I've not seen mentioned so far is that Lawson is also very good in the clutch - he hit a few huge shots over the last few years and rarely misses FTs at the end of the game.  A good quality in an NBA prospect.

I think he'll be good for whoever gets him, but I doubt it'll be us.  If we move up it'll probably be for a swingman or big, not a 21 year old PG to back up our 23 year old PG.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2009, 10:06:23 PM »

Offline StartOrien

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12961
  • Tommy Points: 1200
Something I've not seen mentioned so far is that Lawson is also very good in the clutch - he hit a few huge shots over the last few years and rarely misses FTs at the end of the game.  A good quality in an NBA prospect.

I think he'll be good for whoever gets him, but I doubt it'll be us.  If we move up it'll probably be for a swingman or big, not a 21 year old PG to back up our 23 year old PG.

This is where I somewhat disagree. I think it's easier to find that backup SF for Pierce than it would be to find a suitable backup PG. And while he's young, I think his talent beats out his overall inexperience. I'd rather have Lawson as opposed to Chucky Atkins. Of course, I don't really mean Atkins and have no idea about his availability, moreso talking about the quality of backup PG that would be attainable. And it saves your exceptions for other players.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2009, 10:45:48 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
Something I've not seen mentioned so far is that Lawson is also very good in the clutch - he hit a few huge shots over the last few years and rarely misses FTs at the end of the game.  A good quality in an NBA prospect.

I think he'll be good for whoever gets him, but I doubt it'll be us.  If we move up it'll probably be for a swingman or big, not a 21 year old PG to back up our 23 year old PG.

This is where I somewhat disagree. I think it's easier to find that backup SF for Pierce than it would be to find a suitable backup PG. And while he's young, I think his talent beats out his overall inexperience. I'd rather have Lawson as opposed to Chucky Atkins. Of course, I don't really mean Atkins and have no idea about his availability, moreso talking about the quality of backup PG that would be attainable. And it saves your exceptions for other players.


Oh me too, I'm a big Lawson fan, especially at the draft level he's being discussed at now.  What I'm saying is that if we were to move up in the draft, it would probably be to take someone who Danny thinks could contribute next year at SF or C, so we can have more flexibility at signing quality backups and hopefully fill a hole going forward.  He's much more likely to want a decent vet as a backup PG, because a key rookie PG in a championship run is always a dicey proposition, and our PG is our best young player. 

If we move up, it probably won't be for the purpose of getting another PG.  I'd love to see Lawson wind up here one way or another, I just don't think it'll happen.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2009, 03:01:36 PM »

Offline MBz

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2203
  • Tommy Points: 30
Well the thing with this draft is that the first round is very strong with point guards, so you're going to a see a point guard with more value at 20 then you are with a center or small forward.  I have a feeling Danny will do something on draft night, whether big or small he will be involved somewhere in the night.
do it

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2009, 03:38:41 PM »

Offline bknova

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1103
  • Tommy Points: 73
Sherman Douglas/Khalid El Amin redux. 

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2009, 03:40:55 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Sherman Douglas/Khalid El Amin redux. 


Do you mean that in a good way or bad way?  Douglas was a very decent NBA player, but El Amin washed out pretty quickly.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2009, 04:08:30 PM »

Offline shiggins

  • Al Horford
  • Posts: 463
  • Tommy Points: 147
Hey hes fast can push the tempo and drive to the hole.  But his shot is suspect, and he is real small, one of the smallest players in this draft.

Not exactly an exact comparison for several reasons (i.e., height), but perhaps folks are underrating the effect of Lawson's speed.  Years back I was stunned that lightening quick Eric Snow was considered a second-rounder (he went 43rd), but he eventually got burn in Philly and showed everyone.  He ended up with a very tidy NBA career.  Like Snow, I think Lawson knows how to use his speed.  Perhaps even moreso.


When was Eric Snow fast? I must have missed that part of his career.  I think I also missed the part when he was any good...

I like the Jameer Nelson comparison more.  To me though, Lawson is better athletically whereas Jameer has better skills. 

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2009, 05:00:36 PM »

Offline StartOrien

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12961
  • Tommy Points: 1200
Something I've not seen mentioned so far is that Lawson is also very good in the clutch - he hit a few huge shots over the last few years and rarely misses FTs at the end of the game.  A good quality in an NBA prospect.

I think he'll be good for whoever gets him, but I doubt it'll be us.  If we move up it'll probably be for a swingman or big, not a 21 year old PG to back up our 23 year old PG.

This is where I somewhat disagree. I think it's easier to find that backup SF for Pierce than it would be to find a suitable backup PG. And while he's young, I think his talent beats out his overall inexperience. I'd rather have Lawson as opposed to Chucky Atkins. Of course, I don't really mean Atkins and have no idea about his availability, moreso talking about the quality of backup PG that would be attainable. And it saves your exceptions for other players.


Oh me too, I'm a big Lawson fan, especially at the draft level he's being discussed at now.  What I'm saying is that if we were to move up in the draft, it would probably be to take someone who Danny thinks could contribute next year at SF or C, so we can have more flexibility at signing quality backups and hopefully fill a hole going forward.  He's much more likely to want a decent vet as a backup PG, because a key rookie PG in a championship run is always a dicey proposition, and our PG is our best young player. 

If we move up, it probably won't be for the purpose of getting another PG.  I'd love to see Lawson wind up here one way or another, I just don't think it'll happen.

But what I'm getting at is that I think you can draft Lawson and you'll know you can get year one value out of him and then focus on SF and C through free agency. Whereas I'm not sure that you can get a SF or C through the draft that will be ready to contribute early.

Re: Ty Lawson
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2009, 05:37:19 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
Something I've not seen mentioned so far is that Lawson is also very good in the clutch - he hit a few huge shots over the last few years and rarely misses FTs at the end of the game.  A good quality in an NBA prospect.

I think he'll be good for whoever gets him, but I doubt it'll be us.  If we move up it'll probably be for a swingman or big, not a 21 year old PG to back up our 23 year old PG.

This is where I somewhat disagree. I think it's easier to find that backup SF for Pierce than it would be to find a suitable backup PG. And while he's young, I think his talent beats out his overall inexperience. I'd rather have Lawson as opposed to Chucky Atkins. Of course, I don't really mean Atkins and have no idea about his availability, moreso talking about the quality of backup PG that would be attainable. And it saves your exceptions for other players.


Oh me too, I'm a big Lawson fan, especially at the draft level he's being discussed at now.  What I'm saying is that if we were to move up in the draft, it would probably be to take someone who Danny thinks could contribute next year at SF or C, so we can have more flexibility at signing quality backups and hopefully fill a hole going forward.  He's much more likely to want a decent vet as a backup PG, because a key rookie PG in a championship run is always a dicey proposition, and our PG is our best young player. 

If we move up, it probably won't be for the purpose of getting another PG.  I'd love to see Lawson wind up here one way or another, I just don't think it'll happen.

But what I'm getting at is that I think you can draft Lawson and you'll know you can get year one value out of him and then focus on SF and C through free agency. Whereas I'm not sure that you can get a SF or C through the draft that will be ready to contribute early.

I agree...and I think you could say the same thing about Darren Collison.  For wings on the other hand, there are very few who could step in immediately and help a team win (and they are all projected to go high), and for Centers, there is no one (unless you consider Griffin a center) who can step in immediately.