/ laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"
Tweet
Tonight we kick off the weekend early with the 8th draft analysis of 2009, an in depth study of the enigmatic forward from Louisville, Earl Clark.
Clark is a player I've had my eye on for almost 2 years now, as I was intrigued by him early on in his junior season playing for Rick Pitino. I kept a close eye on Clark all year long, and along with that I've probably done more study of the Cardinals in preparing for this series of articles than with any player I've done the last 2 years, which is saying quite a bit I promise you.
Earl Clark embodies the old line about being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by question marks. He has unique abilities in this particular draft, and has both amazing abilities and maddening tendencies in how he goes about his business on the basketball floor. For this reason, I feel like that Clark has major upside for a likely mid first round pick, but he also carries more risk than anyone else in this draft I think. Of course, last year in this series I gave the riskiest player lable to Eric Gordon, and that risk seemed to pay off so far the Clippers, so with that in mind I am sure that someone in the mid first round is going to hold their breath and roll the dice on Earl Clark. This thread will try and answer the question of whether that team should be Indiana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the following facts are true:
1. Indiana needs an inside player who can play at the same time with either Troy Murphy or Roy Hibbert, so we can limit the amount of time those particular players must play simultaneously.
2. Indiana needs a bigger player capable of defending the more perimeter oriented "4 men" that are currently are so in vogue in the league right now.
3. The player we truly need for the first requirement isn't in this draft, but might have been in last year's version, and/or next year's draft.
4. It's at least "possible" that the player for requirement #2 IS in this draft.
5. Jim O'Brien likes "perimeter 4's" better than the more traditional thinking Larry Bird.
6. Larry Bird tends to favor guys with "positional purity", clearly and easily fitting into a certain position size and athletic-wise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so now we have to try and figure out just exactly who Clark is right now, and who he might be a few years from now. This answer certainly isn't clear, and there will be lots of discussion about this question I am sure. The main thing I think initially is to try and figure out what exact position Clark is at the next level, then use a strong in depth analysis of how he plays to see if he might be a good fit in blue and gold or not. Clark in some people's eyes is a "tweener", others view him as a solid 4 man, still others view him as a big wing. What is he?
To me, the answer is obvious when you actually watch him play, and try and figure out how to besttake advantage of the strengths he brings to the table. I think Clark in an ideal world and circumstance is a bigger than normal wing, a perimeter player with size. This isn't an indictment of Clark's toughness or tenacity exactly, it's just the way it comes out when you examine his playing style. I think it's clear that the best way to maximize Clark is to play him with 2 players smaller than him, and with 2 players his size or bigger than him.
Clark in is not a starting bigger power player in this league, but in the right circumstances he can end up developing into a backup power forward for limited minutes in your second unit. I just like him much better as a wing player facing the basket, and I think that is where his career will take him long term.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, the reason to like Clark mainly has to be about what he can bring your team from a defensive standpoint. Not as much this past season, but in Clark's Junior campaign I was of the opinion that he was one of the best man to man defensive players in the country, and had rare attributes to be able to play outstanding defense at 3 positions. I still feel that way today, with some caveats.
I love Clark's defensive POTENTIAL. He is excellent at cutting off drives with his superior size on the perimeter. His long arms and reach enable him to play back further than others, as he closes out better than almost any player I've seen in this draft. Clark is very good most of the time at playing with "high hands" during a man to man close out situation. Clark also has good balance when having his hands high....he usually stops short of the shooter and influences shots, rather than wildly flying by someone. It sometimes, in this exact skill, looks like he isn't coming at a shooter with enough force and effort, but I think he just smartly stops at a point to where a shot fake/drive isn't going to happen to him easily.
Clark is going to be an outstanding on the ball NBA defender guarding the dribble drive, and contesting the pull up jumper. I also view him as a player who has the ability (when he puts forth the effort) to close out in help situations to recover to spot up shooters very well. I like Clark guarding the opponents better players, and giving whatever team he plays on a bigger defender to use against some of the elite wings in the league when they so choose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But all is not rosy when you discuss Clark and his defense unfortunately.
Clark will show an alarming lack of concentration at times when playing away from the ball. Clark can be beaten back door, as he loses sight of his "ball/you/man" position way more than any quality player should. He has a tendency on film to try and rely on his great ability to slide and move his feet in a reaction sequence, rather than try to concentrate and be where is supposed to be in the first place. He has the athleticism at the NCAA level to recover from his own self inflicted mistakes sometimes, but he could possibly be exposed at the NBA level if he doesnt improve his fundamental ability to focus and concentrate. Clark has huge upside defensively I think overall, especially guarding the ball.....but his helpside defense has to be more smarter and more consistent.
It was tempting (back at the start of the year when I was in love with him) to view Clark as McKey 2.0. But when reviewing the tape, I see almost the opposite type of player in terms of ability to anticipate and use intelligence as a defensive weapon. McKey was one of the smartest defensive players I've ever seen, and Clark some of the times can recreate similar results as McKey did. The difference is that McKey was a great defender not only due to his length and desire but also to his "alertness" and abilty to process information about a player's weaknesses and have a game plan. Clark possesses such great balance, length, and natural defensive gifts that he relies on them too much....he has yet to develop the intellectual abilities that made McKey great.
Basically what I am saying is Clark has great POTENTIAL as a defender (to a McKey level or beyond perhaps) but he is unlikely to ever reach it unless he improves his mental approach and work ethic by a bunch. I'm ok with Clark's laid back tendencies, but I'm decidely not ok with his lack of discipline, focus, and his bouts of laziness on the floor.
Likewise, Clark has many of the same traits as a rebounder. I think he will be a great rebounder at the "3" in the league, but only average as a "4", yet another reason I view him like I do.
ON THE ONE HAND: Clark gets the most aggressive rebounds I saw in college if you don't count Blake Griffin. Sometimes, Clark just is a rebounding stud, leaping high and aggressively pulling the ball down with 2 hands, just like you would teach it.
ON THE OTHER HAND: Sadly, he doesn't do this consistently at all....just doing it in in spurts. He is just as likely to get out muscled or out worked for a ball as he is to grab it like the beast that he potentially is. Once again, "potential" to dominate the glass gets coaches fired instead of getting them rings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark shows some of the same mixed bag approach as a post defender and defender of the screen/roll as well. One of my old coaching buddies calls guys like Clark an "ambidextrous a--hole player", meaning that Clark is a guy who makes his coaches look bad with his mistakes of effort and lack of concentration. The "ambidextrous" part of that quote is because he is a type of guy you say things like "on the one hand, Clark has long arms and is a great weakside shotblocker".....then after a pause you say something like "but on the other hand, he usually is out position by a step or not paying attention, so it doesn't matter if he can block shots or not".
His defensive game is aggravating that way in terms of defending the screen/roll and in guarding the low post.
ONE ONE HAND: Clark has the size and strength to be tough to score on inside.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND: Clark is easy to catch against and doesnt always fight for position.
ON ONE HAND: Clark is great at trapping the screen/roll or hedging hard and turning back the ballhandler without fouling....the best in this draft perhaps!
ON THE OTHER HAND: Sometimes he loses track of what he is supposed to do, or lazily lays back too far and doesn't step out hard at all, or loafs back to his own man.
ON ONE HAND: His great potential is exciting as a coach and a reason you'd beg to be able to coach him!
ON THE OTHER HAND: Your inability to get great effort from him consistently will also contribute to get you fired from coaching him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, I believe in Clark in terms of being a defensive standout potentially in this league. I think he can be a very very good individual defender at 3 different positions. He is flexible as far as being a defensive player goes.
It is as an offensive player that I think makes Clark a much better prospect as a "power wing" than as a "perimeter 4".
It will be tempting for whoever takes Clark to play him big minutes as a 4 man in a small lineup, and to try and get him into mismatches where he can drive the ball against slower people. This will work just well enough I think that it will break your heart coaching him.
Clark takes a long time to make his move, and he seems like he needs alot of space to make them. This is space he will get in the second quarter of a back to back road game in January, but won't get in an intense playoff game in the springtime.
Clark settles way too much for my taste, but in this case I think it is a lack of ballhandling ability, not necessarily a trait of laziness. Clark plays too high with the dribble, not concentrating on getting lower than his defender in order to get by him. What happens to Clark when he drives is that he isn't good fundamentally being explosive with his very first step (he is way too high, with legs stiff) so people guarding him can easily cut him off.
When this happens, this gets us the "ambidextrous a-hole" stuff again. Clark can't get all the way to the basket, but he is the best player in this draft I've seen at making a "guarded shot". He is so freaking good that even if the player guarding him cuts him off and bodies up to him, that he still can rise up and shoot right over the top of him and drill it right into the defenders grill.
ON THE ONE HAND: Clark can make tough shots.
ON THE OTHER HAND: The reason the shots are tough in the first place is Clark's weaknesses driving and beating his man.
Clark doesn't have the classic wing "scorers mentality". He isn't a guy who hunts shots, or pouts when he doesn't score. In fact, he seems to me to be a guy who can really potentially (there is the scariest word in coaching again rearing its ugly head) help your team without scoring much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mainly in 2 areas offensively that I like Clark playing as a wing instead of a post player in the paint.
Clark can post up and score, but doesnt like the constant contact that comes with playing that way the entire game. In fact, Clark doesnt like being physical at all, even though he has the physical tools to be an enforcer....the mentality to be just isn't there I don't think. Clark will be able to muscle up though against smaller wings and use his limited but effected post moves to score in mismatch opportunites in the low post.
This is a key point, so listen up: A coach will be better off using Clark to post up smaller guys than facing him up and isolating him against bigger guys!
A coach will end up having to beg Clark to get inside to start with of course, so the smart thing to do I think will be to run special "set plays" for him to post up when he has an advantage. Clark won't be exceptional, but he will be functionally effective....your teams 4th option in ideal circumstance.
I also love Clark as a big wing post feeder. He holds the ball high over his head, and his reluctance or inability to drive or hunt his own shot helps you here alot. Many wings suck at feeding the post, because they lack patience to wait on the post player to get clear and show a target.....they all want to shake and bake and go to the basket themselves!
But Clark won't do that...he will wait, hold the ball, and legitimately try to throw the ball into the low post. That is a really neat thing to have on a team, and I appreciate the rareness these days of the skill. Clark may help a team more than anything else offensively by being able to be a great feeder of the post.
I also think Clark was taught well to screen at Louisville. He wasn't a great cutter, but I thought his screening fundamentals were pretty good, particularly in timing and getting good angles to screen. Again, Clark doesnt have the scorers mentality to aggressivley turn and look for the ball after setting a screen....instead he'll just casually turn and watch the play, which is aggravating but not fatal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the pitfalls of playing Clark as a wing instead of as your second biggest player?
One potential snag in what would be my plan to play Clark as a wing most of the time would be his poorer cutting ability, which may hinder his ability to get open against tight defense. But in general I think he will be fine, as rarely if ever will Clark be feared enough to be guarded closely by an opponents best defender....and of course that would never happen here I don't think.
Another potential snag with Clark playing a wing would be his inabilty to give you any high volume of foul shots, as Clark doesnt get to the line as a driver very often. Clarks game doesn't compliment Granger (and especially Rush) in this way, as neither of those guys are great ballhandlers against pressure. We can offset that weakness if we have a superior ballhandling point guard however, which is why a selection of Clark on draft night, believe it or not, would be an indication to me that TJ Ford is staying and not being dealt....Clark as a wing needs a big time ballhandling guard who also can score well himself, because most nights Clark isn't going to score alot of points I don't think.....although he will explode into the 20-25 range just enough to make fans think its the coaches fault he doesnt do it all the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to discuss the "Pitino fatigue" factor when discussing Clark I think.
For those of you who don't realize this, "Slick Rick" is not the exciting players coach he puports to be to recruits. I'm not being critical, but he can be a snide, hard driving, difficult to play for anal stickler, and often times he tires of players, and players tire of him. It works out well at the college level for Pitino, as the roster turns over just enough to keep things fresh for him and his roster to be able to stand each other.
I'm afraid the above descriptions made me sound like I think Clark is mentally weak. That is far from true....no player can be mentally weak and play for Louisville's hard driving coaching staff! Clark has no doubt been worked hard, pushed to his physical limits in practice in terms of conditioning, and been taught the game in a tough intense way.
I think Clark likely adopted a personality so laid back and unthreatening that he almost tried not to draw attention to himself, in order to keep from getting the ire of a Coach that while Clark probably respects, that I don't think he liked playing for. At least in 5 different games of Louisville I watched live this past season, in my notes preparing for this review I wrote at the time something like "Clarks hates playing for Pitino" or "Clark will be better when he gets out of here". It just looked to me like some of the joy came out of the game for Clark in his college career, and that he may well be a break out player in the NBA game if handled properly and in a positive way by a coach who is excited by his game, instead of frustrated by it.
Getting away from pop psychology, Pitino is also hard to play for for another, more fundamental coahcing reason: His inability as he gets older to "keep the game simple".
I'm not trying to criticize the ultra successful, engaging Pitino....but I am saying that his teams are not the free wheeling running teams of his days with the Knicks and Providence College. Louisville actually played a pretty slow pace, and ran a high percentage of complicated, complex set plays that I thought Clark struggled with quite frankly.
This is an issue for some coaches as they get older. They install plays with more options, more memorization, more things to remember. You combine a ultra complicated playbook, a demanding and superintense coach, and Clark's own lack of understanding/laidback personality, and you can see why it would be an issue to enjoy playing the game.
"Clark is overcoached/overcontrolled" is another note I read that I took during a game this past year, and I stand by that comment that I wrote back in the winter.
You can see the problem when evaluating Clark: There is an equal chance of it being true that he was over controlled in college, leading to an explosion of production as a pro, with the chance that his lack of concentration and other weaknesses will mean he busts. Either is possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clark could help our team the following ways POTENTIALLY:
1. Defending 3 positions very well, maybe better than anyone we have.
2. Clark can play limited back up minutes at the PF spot (10 minutes or so backing up Murphy) and can back up either Rush or Granger as well. I can easily see ways Clark can play 30 minutes a game for us.
3. Clark becomes one of our best post feeders, one of our better screeners, and our most athletic front court player.
4. Clark is the one wing in the draft you can play at the same time with your other "future core": Hibbert/Clark/Granger/Rush/Point guard is a lineup you can legitimately play in limited stretches.
5. You can also play Clark with Hibbert/Murphy/other wing/Point guard and be pretty good defensively on the perimeter, or at least better than we were.
6. Clark can take the ball out of bounds in late game situations, and he can guard the ball out of bounds in late game defensive situations. The inbounding the ball for us part is important, as we don't have any returning player good at that in my opinion.
7. Clark has at least a small potential for a MUCH bigger upside than I am predicting....at least the ability and athletic talent is there.
Sadly, I also must print this part:
ON THE OTHER HAND:
1. While Clark's on the ball perimeter defense I rate very very high, his lack of away from the ball awareness and concentration might kill a team defensive scheme.
2. His unwillingness or inabilty to have any reliable way to score can be a problem.
3. Jim O'Brien I feel almost surely disagrees with me about him being a wing.....JOB I bet will exclusively play him as a 4 man, rarely playing the big lineup I think Clark would be suited for.......I see Clark being able to play 30 minutes a night potentially....I bet O'Brien sees that as closer to 12 to 15.
4. Clark is a player who will probably need the occasional play called for him to stay involved offensively, and we don't do that often.
5. Clarks tendency to disappear and perhaps pout a bit can bring the entire spirit of a team down a peg, and it is questionable whether we have the culture in place yet to be able to handle that. ...I think we do, but it isn't a sure bet.
6. It is an open question whether I am right and that Clark will blossom away from Pitino, and it is just as possible that Clark doesn't love the game that well, and won't put the effort in once he gets the big NBA paychecks.
I have a knawing feeling in my gut hearing this old coaching axiom:
"How good would you be if we didn't have to constantly coach EFFORT?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm struggling trying to figure out who actually will roll the dice and take Clark. Obviously his potential is way too good to pass up at some point, and there are many teams in this weak draft who have a need for what he specifically COULD bring to the table, and we are one of them!
I see potential landing spots for Clark all the way from Milwaukee at #10 ( I don't know about Skiles being a good fit with Clark personally) to potentially New Jersey at #11 (a good fit for Clark I think), all the way to Detroit at #15 ( I dont think he slides past the Pistons).
Again, what the Pacers decide to do with the rest of their roster impacts this selection. If Ford and Jack can coexist and the team decides to keep them both, Clark is a likely selection I think for Indiana at #13, for better or worse.
I'm torn on whether I personally think that is a good move or not, but I certainly wouldnt be able to criticize the decision, and it would have potential if it worked out to be a key move in adding a very valuable, important piece to our roster. It also could backfire, and it would be risky, but at #13 anyone is a risk.
If he passes our background checks, interview, and if Bird and O'Brien get on the same page about how to use him AND decide to keep Jack/Ford both, I think the Pacers may very well "ride the rapids" and gamble on Earl Clark with their selection.
.................................................. .................................................
NBA comparisons:
He is a very strong comparable to Al Thornton I think, but I think he will rebound much better but score a bit less than him. Still, I think this level is his upside, which is substantial.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND:
He is also a strong comparable to Tim Thomas, which is a sad and terrifying thought to me, and probably the Pacers front office as well.
NBA past player was easy to me for this one:
Charles Smith, ex New York Knick, (among other teams I think) is an almost perfect one both in terms of game and his personality and style. Whether that is good or bad in this draft is up for others to decide.
As always, the above is just my opinion.
Tbird
Clark is a player I've had my eye on for almost 2 years now, as I was intrigued by him early on in his junior season playing for Rick Pitino. I kept a close eye on Clark all year long, and along with that I've probably done more study of the Cardinals in preparing for this series of articles than with any player I've done the last 2 years, which is saying quite a bit I promise you.
Earl Clark embodies the old line about being an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by question marks. He has unique abilities in this particular draft, and has both amazing abilities and maddening tendencies in how he goes about his business on the basketball floor. For this reason, I feel like that Clark has major upside for a likely mid first round pick, but he also carries more risk than anyone else in this draft I think. Of course, last year in this series I gave the riskiest player lable to Eric Gordon, and that risk seemed to pay off so far the Clippers, so with that in mind I am sure that someone in the mid first round is going to hold their breath and roll the dice on Earl Clark. This thread will try and answer the question of whether that team should be Indiana.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the following facts are true:
1. Indiana needs an inside player who can play at the same time with either Troy Murphy or Roy Hibbert, so we can limit the amount of time those particular players must play simultaneously.
2. Indiana needs a bigger player capable of defending the more perimeter oriented "4 men" that are currently are so in vogue in the league right now.
3. The player we truly need for the first requirement isn't in this draft, but might have been in last year's version, and/or next year's draft.
4. It's at least "possible" that the player for requirement #2 IS in this draft.
5. Jim O'Brien likes "perimeter 4's" better than the more traditional thinking Larry Bird.
6. Larry Bird tends to favor guys with "positional purity", clearly and easily fitting into a certain position size and athletic-wise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so now we have to try and figure out just exactly who Clark is right now, and who he might be a few years from now. This answer certainly isn't clear, and there will be lots of discussion about this question I am sure. The main thing I think initially is to try and figure out what exact position Clark is at the next level, then use a strong in depth analysis of how he plays to see if he might be a good fit in blue and gold or not. Clark in some people's eyes is a "tweener", others view him as a solid 4 man, still others view him as a big wing. What is he?
To me, the answer is obvious when you actually watch him play, and try and figure out how to besttake advantage of the strengths he brings to the table. I think Clark in an ideal world and circumstance is a bigger than normal wing, a perimeter player with size. This isn't an indictment of Clark's toughness or tenacity exactly, it's just the way it comes out when you examine his playing style. I think it's clear that the best way to maximize Clark is to play him with 2 players smaller than him, and with 2 players his size or bigger than him.
Clark in is not a starting bigger power player in this league, but in the right circumstances he can end up developing into a backup power forward for limited minutes in your second unit. I just like him much better as a wing player facing the basket, and I think that is where his career will take him long term.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To me, the reason to like Clark mainly has to be about what he can bring your team from a defensive standpoint. Not as much this past season, but in Clark's Junior campaign I was of the opinion that he was one of the best man to man defensive players in the country, and had rare attributes to be able to play outstanding defense at 3 positions. I still feel that way today, with some caveats.
I love Clark's defensive POTENTIAL. He is excellent at cutting off drives with his superior size on the perimeter. His long arms and reach enable him to play back further than others, as he closes out better than almost any player I've seen in this draft. Clark is very good most of the time at playing with "high hands" during a man to man close out situation. Clark also has good balance when having his hands high....he usually stops short of the shooter and influences shots, rather than wildly flying by someone. It sometimes, in this exact skill, looks like he isn't coming at a shooter with enough force and effort, but I think he just smartly stops at a point to where a shot fake/drive isn't going to happen to him easily.
Clark is going to be an outstanding on the ball NBA defender guarding the dribble drive, and contesting the pull up jumper. I also view him as a player who has the ability (when he puts forth the effort) to close out in help situations to recover to spot up shooters very well. I like Clark guarding the opponents better players, and giving whatever team he plays on a bigger defender to use against some of the elite wings in the league when they so choose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
But all is not rosy when you discuss Clark and his defense unfortunately.
Clark will show an alarming lack of concentration at times when playing away from the ball. Clark can be beaten back door, as he loses sight of his "ball/you/man" position way more than any quality player should. He has a tendency on film to try and rely on his great ability to slide and move his feet in a reaction sequence, rather than try to concentrate and be where is supposed to be in the first place. He has the athleticism at the NCAA level to recover from his own self inflicted mistakes sometimes, but he could possibly be exposed at the NBA level if he doesnt improve his fundamental ability to focus and concentrate. Clark has huge upside defensively I think overall, especially guarding the ball.....but his helpside defense has to be more smarter and more consistent.
It was tempting (back at the start of the year when I was in love with him) to view Clark as McKey 2.0. But when reviewing the tape, I see almost the opposite type of player in terms of ability to anticipate and use intelligence as a defensive weapon. McKey was one of the smartest defensive players I've ever seen, and Clark some of the times can recreate similar results as McKey did. The difference is that McKey was a great defender not only due to his length and desire but also to his "alertness" and abilty to process information about a player's weaknesses and have a game plan. Clark possesses such great balance, length, and natural defensive gifts that he relies on them too much....he has yet to develop the intellectual abilities that made McKey great.
Basically what I am saying is Clark has great POTENTIAL as a defender (to a McKey level or beyond perhaps) but he is unlikely to ever reach it unless he improves his mental approach and work ethic by a bunch. I'm ok with Clark's laid back tendencies, but I'm decidely not ok with his lack of discipline, focus, and his bouts of laziness on the floor.
Likewise, Clark has many of the same traits as a rebounder. I think he will be a great rebounder at the "3" in the league, but only average as a "4", yet another reason I view him like I do.
ON THE ONE HAND: Clark gets the most aggressive rebounds I saw in college if you don't count Blake Griffin. Sometimes, Clark just is a rebounding stud, leaping high and aggressively pulling the ball down with 2 hands, just like you would teach it.
ON THE OTHER HAND: Sadly, he doesn't do this consistently at all....just doing it in in spurts. He is just as likely to get out muscled or out worked for a ball as he is to grab it like the beast that he potentially is. Once again, "potential" to dominate the glass gets coaches fired instead of getting them rings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark shows some of the same mixed bag approach as a post defender and defender of the screen/roll as well. One of my old coaching buddies calls guys like Clark an "ambidextrous a--hole player", meaning that Clark is a guy who makes his coaches look bad with his mistakes of effort and lack of concentration. The "ambidextrous" part of that quote is because he is a type of guy you say things like "on the one hand, Clark has long arms and is a great weakside shotblocker".....then after a pause you say something like "but on the other hand, he usually is out position by a step or not paying attention, so it doesn't matter if he can block shots or not".
His defensive game is aggravating that way in terms of defending the screen/roll and in guarding the low post.
ONE ONE HAND: Clark has the size and strength to be tough to score on inside.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND: Clark is easy to catch against and doesnt always fight for position.
ON ONE HAND: Clark is great at trapping the screen/roll or hedging hard and turning back the ballhandler without fouling....the best in this draft perhaps!
ON THE OTHER HAND: Sometimes he loses track of what he is supposed to do, or lazily lays back too far and doesn't step out hard at all, or loafs back to his own man.
ON ONE HAND: His great potential is exciting as a coach and a reason you'd beg to be able to coach him!
ON THE OTHER HAND: Your inability to get great effort from him consistently will also contribute to get you fired from coaching him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, I believe in Clark in terms of being a defensive standout potentially in this league. I think he can be a very very good individual defender at 3 different positions. He is flexible as far as being a defensive player goes.
It is as an offensive player that I think makes Clark a much better prospect as a "power wing" than as a "perimeter 4".
It will be tempting for whoever takes Clark to play him big minutes as a 4 man in a small lineup, and to try and get him into mismatches where he can drive the ball against slower people. This will work just well enough I think that it will break your heart coaching him.
Clark takes a long time to make his move, and he seems like he needs alot of space to make them. This is space he will get in the second quarter of a back to back road game in January, but won't get in an intense playoff game in the springtime.
Clark settles way too much for my taste, but in this case I think it is a lack of ballhandling ability, not necessarily a trait of laziness. Clark plays too high with the dribble, not concentrating on getting lower than his defender in order to get by him. What happens to Clark when he drives is that he isn't good fundamentally being explosive with his very first step (he is way too high, with legs stiff) so people guarding him can easily cut him off.
When this happens, this gets us the "ambidextrous a-hole" stuff again. Clark can't get all the way to the basket, but he is the best player in this draft I've seen at making a "guarded shot". He is so freaking good that even if the player guarding him cuts him off and bodies up to him, that he still can rise up and shoot right over the top of him and drill it right into the defenders grill.
ON THE ONE HAND: Clark can make tough shots.
ON THE OTHER HAND: The reason the shots are tough in the first place is Clark's weaknesses driving and beating his man.
Clark doesn't have the classic wing "scorers mentality". He isn't a guy who hunts shots, or pouts when he doesn't score. In fact, he seems to me to be a guy who can really potentially (there is the scariest word in coaching again rearing its ugly head) help your team without scoring much.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is mainly in 2 areas offensively that I like Clark playing as a wing instead of a post player in the paint.
Clark can post up and score, but doesnt like the constant contact that comes with playing that way the entire game. In fact, Clark doesnt like being physical at all, even though he has the physical tools to be an enforcer....the mentality to be just isn't there I don't think. Clark will be able to muscle up though against smaller wings and use his limited but effected post moves to score in mismatch opportunites in the low post.
This is a key point, so listen up: A coach will be better off using Clark to post up smaller guys than facing him up and isolating him against bigger guys!
A coach will end up having to beg Clark to get inside to start with of course, so the smart thing to do I think will be to run special "set plays" for him to post up when he has an advantage. Clark won't be exceptional, but he will be functionally effective....your teams 4th option in ideal circumstance.
I also love Clark as a big wing post feeder. He holds the ball high over his head, and his reluctance or inability to drive or hunt his own shot helps you here alot. Many wings suck at feeding the post, because they lack patience to wait on the post player to get clear and show a target.....they all want to shake and bake and go to the basket themselves!
But Clark won't do that...he will wait, hold the ball, and legitimately try to throw the ball into the low post. That is a really neat thing to have on a team, and I appreciate the rareness these days of the skill. Clark may help a team more than anything else offensively by being able to be a great feeder of the post.
I also think Clark was taught well to screen at Louisville. He wasn't a great cutter, but I thought his screening fundamentals were pretty good, particularly in timing and getting good angles to screen. Again, Clark doesnt have the scorers mentality to aggressivley turn and look for the ball after setting a screen....instead he'll just casually turn and watch the play, which is aggravating but not fatal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are the pitfalls of playing Clark as a wing instead of as your second biggest player?
One potential snag in what would be my plan to play Clark as a wing most of the time would be his poorer cutting ability, which may hinder his ability to get open against tight defense. But in general I think he will be fine, as rarely if ever will Clark be feared enough to be guarded closely by an opponents best defender....and of course that would never happen here I don't think.
Another potential snag with Clark playing a wing would be his inabilty to give you any high volume of foul shots, as Clark doesnt get to the line as a driver very often. Clarks game doesn't compliment Granger (and especially Rush) in this way, as neither of those guys are great ballhandlers against pressure. We can offset that weakness if we have a superior ballhandling point guard however, which is why a selection of Clark on draft night, believe it or not, would be an indication to me that TJ Ford is staying and not being dealt....Clark as a wing needs a big time ballhandling guard who also can score well himself, because most nights Clark isn't going to score alot of points I don't think.....although he will explode into the 20-25 range just enough to make fans think its the coaches fault he doesnt do it all the time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We need to discuss the "Pitino fatigue" factor when discussing Clark I think.
For those of you who don't realize this, "Slick Rick" is not the exciting players coach he puports to be to recruits. I'm not being critical, but he can be a snide, hard driving, difficult to play for anal stickler, and often times he tires of players, and players tire of him. It works out well at the college level for Pitino, as the roster turns over just enough to keep things fresh for him and his roster to be able to stand each other.
I'm afraid the above descriptions made me sound like I think Clark is mentally weak. That is far from true....no player can be mentally weak and play for Louisville's hard driving coaching staff! Clark has no doubt been worked hard, pushed to his physical limits in practice in terms of conditioning, and been taught the game in a tough intense way.
I think Clark likely adopted a personality so laid back and unthreatening that he almost tried not to draw attention to himself, in order to keep from getting the ire of a Coach that while Clark probably respects, that I don't think he liked playing for. At least in 5 different games of Louisville I watched live this past season, in my notes preparing for this review I wrote at the time something like "Clarks hates playing for Pitino" or "Clark will be better when he gets out of here". It just looked to me like some of the joy came out of the game for Clark in his college career, and that he may well be a break out player in the NBA game if handled properly and in a positive way by a coach who is excited by his game, instead of frustrated by it.
Getting away from pop psychology, Pitino is also hard to play for for another, more fundamental coahcing reason: His inability as he gets older to "keep the game simple".
I'm not trying to criticize the ultra successful, engaging Pitino....but I am saying that his teams are not the free wheeling running teams of his days with the Knicks and Providence College. Louisville actually played a pretty slow pace, and ran a high percentage of complicated, complex set plays that I thought Clark struggled with quite frankly.
This is an issue for some coaches as they get older. They install plays with more options, more memorization, more things to remember. You combine a ultra complicated playbook, a demanding and superintense coach, and Clark's own lack of understanding/laidback personality, and you can see why it would be an issue to enjoy playing the game.
"Clark is overcoached/overcontrolled" is another note I read that I took during a game this past year, and I stand by that comment that I wrote back in the winter.
You can see the problem when evaluating Clark: There is an equal chance of it being true that he was over controlled in college, leading to an explosion of production as a pro, with the chance that his lack of concentration and other weaknesses will mean he busts. Either is possible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clark could help our team the following ways POTENTIALLY:
1. Defending 3 positions very well, maybe better than anyone we have.
2. Clark can play limited back up minutes at the PF spot (10 minutes or so backing up Murphy) and can back up either Rush or Granger as well. I can easily see ways Clark can play 30 minutes a game for us.
3. Clark becomes one of our best post feeders, one of our better screeners, and our most athletic front court player.
4. Clark is the one wing in the draft you can play at the same time with your other "future core": Hibbert/Clark/Granger/Rush/Point guard is a lineup you can legitimately play in limited stretches.
5. You can also play Clark with Hibbert/Murphy/other wing/Point guard and be pretty good defensively on the perimeter, or at least better than we were.
6. Clark can take the ball out of bounds in late game situations, and he can guard the ball out of bounds in late game defensive situations. The inbounding the ball for us part is important, as we don't have any returning player good at that in my opinion.
7. Clark has at least a small potential for a MUCH bigger upside than I am predicting....at least the ability and athletic talent is there.
Sadly, I also must print this part:
ON THE OTHER HAND:
1. While Clark's on the ball perimeter defense I rate very very high, his lack of away from the ball awareness and concentration might kill a team defensive scheme.
2. His unwillingness or inabilty to have any reliable way to score can be a problem.
3. Jim O'Brien I feel almost surely disagrees with me about him being a wing.....JOB I bet will exclusively play him as a 4 man, rarely playing the big lineup I think Clark would be suited for.......I see Clark being able to play 30 minutes a night potentially....I bet O'Brien sees that as closer to 12 to 15.
4. Clark is a player who will probably need the occasional play called for him to stay involved offensively, and we don't do that often.
5. Clarks tendency to disappear and perhaps pout a bit can bring the entire spirit of a team down a peg, and it is questionable whether we have the culture in place yet to be able to handle that. ...I think we do, but it isn't a sure bet.
6. It is an open question whether I am right and that Clark will blossom away from Pitino, and it is just as possible that Clark doesn't love the game that well, and won't put the effort in once he gets the big NBA paychecks.
I have a knawing feeling in my gut hearing this old coaching axiom:
"How good would you be if we didn't have to constantly coach EFFORT?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm struggling trying to figure out who actually will roll the dice and take Clark. Obviously his potential is way too good to pass up at some point, and there are many teams in this weak draft who have a need for what he specifically COULD bring to the table, and we are one of them!
I see potential landing spots for Clark all the way from Milwaukee at #10 ( I don't know about Skiles being a good fit with Clark personally) to potentially New Jersey at #11 (a good fit for Clark I think), all the way to Detroit at #15 ( I dont think he slides past the Pistons).
Again, what the Pacers decide to do with the rest of their roster impacts this selection. If Ford and Jack can coexist and the team decides to keep them both, Clark is a likely selection I think for Indiana at #13, for better or worse.
I'm torn on whether I personally think that is a good move or not, but I certainly wouldnt be able to criticize the decision, and it would have potential if it worked out to be a key move in adding a very valuable, important piece to our roster. It also could backfire, and it would be risky, but at #13 anyone is a risk.
If he passes our background checks, interview, and if Bird and O'Brien get on the same page about how to use him AND decide to keep Jack/Ford both, I think the Pacers may very well "ride the rapids" and gamble on Earl Clark with their selection.
.................................................. .................................................
NBA comparisons:
He is a very strong comparable to Al Thornton I think, but I think he will rebound much better but score a bit less than him. Still, I think this level is his upside, which is substantial.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND:
He is also a strong comparable to Tim Thomas, which is a sad and terrifying thought to me, and probably the Pacers front office as well.
NBA past player was easy to me for this one:
Charles Smith, ex New York Knick, (among other teams I think) is an almost perfect one both in terms of game and his personality and style. Whether that is good or bad in this draft is up for others to decide.
As always, the above is just my opinion.
Tbird
Comment