James johnson

[Glenn]

It has been the rare note that shows any faith that he will be the defensive SF that we have supposedly been looking for. I know nothing about him. He is 6'9" 248 pounds which means he can bump chests with big SFs. There are no other stats that leap out at you which may be off putting.

It seems now we have to stand by what we have been claiming that we want and that is a defensive minded SF who does not demand the ball. It seems like he is that. He's not so hot on blocked shots although not bad, the other defensive stats are decent but not striking. His offensive stats are not great either except he is an average free throw shooter. He averages 2 assists per game and with our team probably makes little difference unless it means he can't pass the ball at all.

Does anyone know anything about him? His last team dumped him for almost nothing. He was dumped by Chicago also. I am bothered by the threads that end with a trade that gets us another SF and that is a slap in the face to Petrie who in my naive and wishfiul way of thinking thought JJ would be just fine for us. I suspect he is the best defensive minded SF for us and as he doesn't need the ball, perhaps that's a good fit. I really don't know. I'd hate to think that we just traded a 2nd round pick for someone who simply adds to the numbers of SFs we already have. If that's all it was, it was a waste of a trade. We need people who can contribute.

 

[Hadlowe]

Defensively, he will be a good piece. I do dread the day when we get the lineup of Hayes/Johnson/Salmons/Thornton/IT on the floor.

 

[Kingsguy881]

What do you mean by 'not so hot on blocked shots'? From my research he was the best shot blocking SF available not named AK47....

edit:

1.4 blocks a game in 25 mins???

 

[Glenn]

What do you mean by 'not so hot on blocked shots'? From my research he was the best shot blocking SF available not named AK47....

Then I'm wrong and happy to be wrong.

 

[Bricklayer]

he's a strange looking player (kind of like a tubby stubby ground bound PF playing SF) with a strange looking game, but he does bring toughness and defensive effort. But is he just overall good enough to be THE defenisve guy for a decent team? Or is he just a part time defensive rolepaying rotational player? That's the thing that's unknown. Still, he's the best we've got so we have to roll with it and hope.

 

[Glenn]

he's a strange looking player (kind of like a tubby stubby ground bound PF playing SF) with a strange looking game, but he does bring toughness and defensive effort. But is he just overall good enough to be THE defenisve guy for a decent team? Or is he just a part time defensive rolepaying rotational player? That's the thing that's unknown. Still, he's the best we've got so we have to roll with it and hope.

The reason I posted this subject is that although I thought he was a defensive minded SF, people seemed to be ignoring that he might contribute. I think there is a disappointment that we didn't get Iggy or AK47 and for some reason, if we didn't get either, we didn't get anything. He IS defensive minded and that helps balance an unbalanced team. Isn't that right? I'll answer and say "of course." It is difficult to think that a guy this size can be a defensive minded SF as the weight seems to exclude him. However, if he is a quick 248 lbs., he's great for us and a physical anomaly somewhat like TRob.

On the court with TRob, we have what could be an interesting duo. If our big guys learn from each other and better yet, learn the positives and negatives of their floormates and adjust appropriately, this could be very fine for several years. It takes years to learn the ins and outs of your mates so let's hope they all stick together for awhile. We'll see how this all turns out but so far I am happy about acquiring him. I don't know why Toronto thought a 2nd round pick was an appropriate trade but maybe someone can fill me in on whether or not he had problems with Toronto.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

he's a strange looking player (kind of like a tubby stubby ground bound PF playing SF) with a strange looking game, but he does bring toughness and defensive effort. But is he just overall good enough to be THE defenisve guy for a decent team? Or is he just a part time defensive rolepaying rotational player? That's the thing that's unknown. Still, he's the best we've got so we have to roll with it and hope.

"Tubby stubby ground bound"?

He's 6'7" in socks, so a bit over 6'8" playing height, which is perfectly fine for a SF, with a 7'0.75" wingspan. His 8'9.5" standing reach isn't extreme, but it's half an inch more than Blake Griffin. I think he had a bit of extra weight on coming out of college but it looks like he has slimmed down a bit.

 

[bajaden]

Then I'm wrong and happy to be wrong.

Well, in this rare instance, you are wrong. He led all SF's in blocked shots last season, and actually, his blocked shot percentage is exceeded only by centers in the league. But your right, most people haven't heard much of him, and to be honest, I probably saw him play more in college than I have in the NBA. And he played PF in college. But before anyone has a heart attack over that, remember that Gerald Wallace played center and PF in college. The best way at this point to make a judgement is to compare him to another defensive minded SF, that most of us wanted on the team. Kirilenko!

Granted, stats can't tell the whole story, but at this point, its all we have to go on.

Kirilenko, in his last NBA season: 31 MPG - 46.7% FGA - 36.7% 3PP - 77.0% FTP - 5.1 RPG - 1.3 SPG - 1.2 BPG - 11.7 PPG

Johnson, last season: 25 MPG - 45.0% FGA - 31.7% 3PP - 70.4% FTP - 4.7 RPG - 1.1 SPG - 1.4 BPG - 9.1 PPG

When you figure that Kirilenko played about 6 more minutes a game, most of the stats are fairly equal. Johnson's weakness is his 3pt shooting, but it has improved over the last three years, and when he shoots from a set position, his percentage is better. But the truth is, he only averages 1 three pt shot a game. As you can see, his blocks per game is right up there with the best in the league until you get to guys like Ebaka and Howard. His steals per game average is good as well, and his rebounding is good for a SF.

I'm sure the hope that Petrie has, is that were getting him at the right time, similar to when we aquired Christie. Another player not many had heard of at the time, but who became a household name. At this point, we don't know. What we do know, is that it won't take much to be better than what we had. If were lucky, he's exactly what were looking for.

 

[bajaden]

he's a strange looking player (kind of like a tubby stubby ground bound PF playing SF) with a strange looking game, but he does bring toughness and defensive effort. But is he just overall good enough to be THE defenisve guy for a decent team? Or is he just a part time defensive rolepaying rotational player? That's the thing that's unknown. Still, he's the best we've got so we have to roll with it and hope.

Not quite sure where you get the ground bound thing. He's a very good athlete, and had the same vertical at the combine as Blake Griffin, 35 inches. The only correction I would make is that he's not 6'9", but actually 6'8", which doesn't mean much when your talking about SF's in the league. In college I always questioned whether he was a PF or SF. He reminds me quite of bit, game wise as Patrick Paterson, who I think is struggling with the same problem. Anyway, it appears that Johnson has commited to being a SF, which I think he's more than athletic enough to play. He just has to improve that outside shot, which he actually shot well the first half of last season. Hey, we can hope!

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

I haven't been very happy with our offseason thus far ( and I understand it's just about over ) but Johnson has a CHANCE to turn a very mediocre offseason into a solid one.

He is a guy, much like Donte Greene was a guy, and Omri Casspi was a guy, who CAN potentially fix our SF issues. I don't know if he will, but he has a shot. I would say the odd's are actually in his favor, because we have missed so horribly bad with our SF moves that ONE of these guys' has to work out.

I see a scenario where this works out. I don't know if we will get to that point with Johnson, but the potential is there. At the absolute least, he gives us some size and shotblocking at a position where we need it bad.

I'm willing to go into next season with

Thomas / Brooks
Evans / Thornton
Johnson / Salmons
Thompson / Robinson
Cousins / Hayes

That should improve our squad defensively quite a bit. In fact, I'm actually excited to see Evans play defense against his natural opposing 2 while Johnson play's the opposing teams 3, along with his weakside shotblocking. At that point, you have to hope that your starting lineup has 4 above average defenders in it. When was the last time we could say that? Important to note that I think Thomas is a good defender, and JT has really come around in that regard. We wouldn't have the rim protection I would like, but that unit SHOULD be able to defend.

 

[Chupacabra]

I will be very pleased as long as his presence is noticeable. Greene and Outlaw were like ghosts for much of the time that they were on the floor. He doesnt seems to be a scorer or ball handler and currently on this team thats a major plus. 10 ppg 5 rpg 1-2 blks 1 stl would be nice.

 

[Glenn]

BTW, this page says he is 6'9". I don't want to be wrong twice and twice in the same thread would be awful. Maybe the web site is wrong (NBA.com) but this is where I got it.

 

[twslam07]

I haven't been very happy with our offseason thus far ( and I understand it's just about over ) but Johnson has a CHANCE to turn a very mediocre offseason into a solid one.

He is a guy, much like Donte Greene was a guy, and Omri Casspi was a guy, who CAN potentially fix our SF issues. I don't know if he will, but he has a shot. I would say the odd's are actually in his favor, because we have missed so horribly bad with our SF moves that ONE of these guys' has to work out.

I see a scenario where this works out. I don't know if we will get to that point with Johnson, but the potential is there. At the absolute least, he gives us some size and shotblocking at a position where we need it bad.

I'm willing to go into next season with

Thomas / Brooks
Evans / Thornton
Johnson / Salmons
Thompson / Robinson
Cousins / Hayes

That should improve our squad defensively quite a bit. In fact, I'm actually excited to see Evans play defense against his natural opposing 2 while Johnson play's the opposing teams 3, along with his weakside shotblocking. At that point, you have to hope that your starting lineup has 4 above average defenders in it. When was the last time we could say that? Important to note that I think Thomas is a good defender, and JT has really come around in that regard. We wouldn't have the rim protection I would like, but that unit SHOULD be able to defend.

The only problem with having Brooks, Thomas, Thornton, and Evans on the roster is you will still get to see Evans guard opposing teams 3s unless you want to play him 25 mpg of course...

 

[twslam07]

BTW, this page says he is 6'9". I don't want to be wrong twice and twice in the same thread would be awful. Maybe the web site is wrong (NBA.com) but this is where I got it.

I tend to avoid sites like these when it comes to heights of players. I normally use draftexpress. They have the official combine results.

 

[Glenn]

I tend to avoid sites like these when it comes to heights of players. I normally use draftexpress. They have the official combine results.

So I should go to DraftExpress instead of NBA.com? That on it's face sounds a bit off kilter. If I wanT to compare heights which is all these heights are for, I'll stick with NBA.com. We all know the heights aren't exact but for comparative purposes, they are useful. I WILL NOT ADMIT TO BEING WRONG AGAIN.

 

[twslam07]

So I should go to DraftExpress instead of NBA.com? That on it's face sounds a bit off kilter. If I wanT to compare heights which is all these heights are for, I'll stick with NBA.com. We all know the heights aren't exact but for comparative purposes, they are useful. I WILL NOT ADMIT TO BEING WRONG AGAIN.

I just gave you the website with the most exact heights yet you stick to NBA.com. This bothers me. Now I have to go to bed upset

 

[bajaden]

So I should go to DraftExpress instead of NBA.com? That on it's face sounds a bit off kilter. If I wanT to compare heights which is all these heights are for, I'll stick with NBA.com. We all know the heights aren't exact but for comparative purposes, they are useful. I WILL NOT ADMIT TO BEING WRONG AGAIN.

Well, in this instance, once again you'd be wrong. Draftexpress posts the actual measurements from the NBA combine. It lists both a players height in socks, and in shoes. NBAdraft.com also lists the same results which are indentical to Draftexpress. Why NBA.com doesn't bring their stats up to date is beyond me, but in many instances, they list the height thats posted by the players college.

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre...009&source=All&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&sort=

 

[Bricklayer]

BTW, this page says he is 6'9". I don't want to be wrong twice and twice in the same thread would be awful. Maybe the web site is wrong (NBA.com) but this is where I got it.

that was one of those classic uh oh he's supposed to be a PF so we better list him at 6'9" sorts of things that just stuck. They were calling him 6'7" as a rook, and 6'8" in shoes seems legit and fine for a SF. His bulk as a SF is more unusal than his height is. He may actually weigh more than TRob (although his body looked better last year) and after trying to play Salmons and Reke there last year that will be a relief against power SFs.

 

[Sac.1989]

best thing we've done this offseason. Im confident hes our future SF and solidifys the position. Our backcourt and how that works out should be our focus

 

[Bricklayer]

Not quite sure where you get the ground bound thing. He's a very good athlete, and had the same vertical at the combine as Blake Griffin, 35 inches. The only correction I would make is that he's not 6'9", but actually 6'8", which doesn't mean much when your talking about SF's in the league. In college I always questioned whether he was a PF or SF. He reminds me quite of bit, game wise as Patrick Paterson, who I think is struggling with the same problem. Anyway, it appears that Johnson has commited to being a SF, which I think he's more than athletic enough to play. He just has to improve that outside shot, which he actually shot well the first half of last season. Hey, we can hope!

Perhaps I should have worded that more strongly to avoid confusion. I said he was a strange LOOKING player, kind of like... Not that that is how he plays. He's got a weird looking body, often looks too ungainly to stick with SFs. But that's not saying he doesn't. He was a borderline NBA guy if he was going to have to play the smallish tweener PF. Just giving up too much and not taking enough away on the other end. But you are whatever position you can defend, and he's proven he can defend SFs during his Toronto stay, and that gives him a shot at a real career now. It was not a bad pickup at all. The problem is that it was the ONLY defensive pickup to the worst defensive team in basketball, and obviously Johnson has nowhere near the stature to be expected to make much of a dent in that all by himself. You have to hope for some domino effect. Have Johnson, get Reke back playing a position he can defend, send Thornton to the bench, and in the process knock two major defensive holes (Reke at SF, Thornton) out of your starting linuep at once.

P.S. that said, that 35" thing appears to be a classic example of the limitations of combine numbers int he real world. Johnson can finish over the rim, but in game his leaping explosiveness is nowhere on the same planet as Blake's. I'm not even sure he is as explosive as Donte, although I think that's a better ballpark.

 

[Kingster]

Not quite sure where you get the ground bound thing. He's a very good athlete, and had the same vertical at the combine as Blake Griffin, 35 inches. The only correction I would make is that he's not 6'9", but actually 6'8", which doesn't mean much when your talking about SF's in the league. In college I always questioned whether he was a PF or SF. He reminds me quite of bit, game wise as Patrick Paterson, who I think is struggling with the same problem. Anyway, it appears that Johnson has commited to being a SF, which I think he's more than athletic enough to play. He just has to improve that outside shot, which he actually shot well the first half of last season. Hey, we can hope!

Ok, it just had to be asked: If this guy has the same vertical as Griffin, then why isn't he Griffin II? Also, it just seems hard to believe that he has the same vertical as Griffin when Griffin seems to be the best leaper the NBA has seen since the likes of David Thompson (I think his vertical was 44"), MJ, et al. What am I missing here?

 

[Kingster]

I haven't been very happy with our offseason thus far ( and I understand it's just about over ) but Johnson has a CHANCE to turn a very mediocre offseason into a solid one.

He is a guy, much like Donte Greene was a guy, and Omri Casspi was a guy, who CAN potentially fix our SF issues. I don't know if he will, but he has a shot. I would say the odd's are actually in his favor, because we have missed so horribly bad with our SF moves that ONE of these guys' has to work out.

I see a scenario where this works out. I don't know if we will get to that point with Johnson, but the potential is there. At the absolute least, he gives us some size and shotblocking at a position where we need it bad.

I'm willing to go into next season with

Thomas / Brooks
Evans / Thornton
Johnson / Salmons
Thompson / Robinson
Cousins / Hayes

That should improve our squad defensively quite a bit. In fact, I'm actually excited to see Evans play defense against his natural opposing 2 while Johnson play's the opposing teams 3, along with his weakside shotblocking. At that point, you have to hope that your starting lineup has 4 above average defenders in it. When was the last time we could say that? Important to note that I think Thomas is a good defender, and JT has really come around in that regard. We wouldn't have the rim protection I would like, but that unit SHOULD be able to defend.

Agreed. If Petrie is right that Johnson is a good defender, then yes, that unit should defend. If it doesn't, it's not because of ability. I'd even go a tiny step further. I think Cousins has the ability to defend. Yes, he's never going to be a guy to block shots from the weak side, but he didn't lead the league in taking charges for nothing. He has quick feet and good anticipation. He also can be good at guarding his man in one-on-one situations. So you can make the case that the unit you speak of has five guys with the talent to play defense. To me, it puts the onus on Smart to get these guys to play up to their capabilities on defense.

 

[MassachusettsKingsFan]

The only problem with having Brooks, Thomas, Thornton, and Evans on the roster is you will still get to see Evans guard opposing teams 3s unless you want to play him 25 mpg of course...

We like to make a big deal about Evans defending 3's ... I do it all the time. It is a big deal, but its really only a big deal against 3's he cannot defend. I'm much less worried about his defense against opposing 3's if those 3's are backups. If our coach is smart (pun intended) he'll play Evans those 25mins+ on the other teams starting 2 and 10 or so minutes on the backup 3. It will be different every night, but there are MANY ways to avoid bad defensive matchups if we play it right.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Ok, it just had to be asked: If this guy has the same vertical as Griffin, then why isn't he Griffin II?

Why did it just have to be asked? It certainly doesn't seem like a serious question.

I do, however, get a kick out of the direction of the conversation, which could be summed up like this:
"James Johnson cons: Groundbound."
"Johnson isn't groundbound. He put up the same vertical leap at the combine as Blake Griffin."
"Updated James Johnson cons: Not Blake Griffin."

 

[KingsCitizen]

Ok, it just had to be asked: If this guy has the same vertical as Griffin, then why isn't he Griffin II? Also, it just seems hard to believe that he has the same vertical as Griffin when Griffin seems to be the best leaper the NBA has seen since the likes of David Thompson (I think his vertical was 44"), MJ, et al. What am I missing here?

DraftExpress have Griffin's max vert at 35.5 while JJ's at 35.
Being a number 1 pick and all those super-hyped Griffin dunks are key reasons why a lot of fans think Griffin is such a high leaper.

 

[bajaden]

Ok, it just had to be asked: If this guy has the same vertical as Griffin, then why isn't he Griffin II? Also, it just seems hard to believe that he has the same vertical as Griffin when Griffin seems to be the best leaper the NBA has seen since the likes of David Thompson (I think his vertical was 44"), MJ, et al. What am I missing here?

OK, you win! Griffin's vertical was a half inch higher at 35.5", while Johnson's was just 35". Look, I'm just giving you the results from the combine. Lets also remember that Griffin is 6'10" in shoes, while Johnson is 6'8" in shoes. I might also add, that just because you can jump high, doesn't mean you share all the other athletic abilities of the other player. As you well know, this isn't a cookie cutter league, where everyone with the same height, and athletic ability perform's equally. J.J. Hickson has a great vertical as well, but he's no Blake Griffin.

Anyway, the point of the post wasn't to equate him with Griffin, but to show he's far from ground bound.

 

[bajaden]

DraftExpress have Griffin's max vert at 35.5 while JJ's at 35.
Being a number 1 pick and all those super-hyped Griffin dunks are key reasons why a lot of fans think Griffin is such a high leaper.

I think it should also be pointed out, that since he referred to David Thompson, that Thompson was 6'4" tall, while Griffin is 6'10" tall. Anything 35" or above for a big man is above average. Thats what made Shaq so unique. Its not often that you get a big man thats 7'2" tall and weighs 300 pounds that and post a vertical of 33" or above. Of course that was right out of college, and not later in his career.

 

[Section 101]

I think it should also be pointed out, that since he referred to David Thompson, that Thompson was 6'4" tall, while Griffin is 6'10" tall. Anything 35" or above for a big man is above average. Thats what made Shaq so unique. Its not often that you get a big man thats 7'2" tall and weighs 300 pounds that and post a vertical of 33" or above. Of course that was right out of college, and not later in his career.

Go back and watch Blue Chips. Shaq was not 300 pounds back in the day.

 

[Bricklayer]

Go back and watch Blue Chips. Shaq was not 300 pounds back in the day.

don't know about that -- he was listed at 300 basically from as soon as he came into the league I think 290 his rookie season maybe.

The real thing with Shaq is that for most of his career he was way ABOVE that level. 330. 340. Who knows. In the last year in Boston he looked like he might have been carrying 350+. He was gigantic. But even young Shaq was monstrous.

 

[Kingster]

Why did it just have to be asked? It certainly doesn't seem like a serious question.

I do, however, get a kick out of the direction of the conversation, which could be summed up like this:
"James Johnson cons: Groundbound."
"Johnson isn't groundbound. He put up the same vertical leap at the combine as Blake Griffin."
"Updated James Johnson cons: Not Blake Griffin."

And the question is so unserious that you can't even answer it. How serious does that make you? Do you think Johnson jumps as high as Griffin or don't you?