Seems like the consensus across the league and with sports writers that LA should have taken him #2.
Did the Lakers make a mistake in selecting Russell?
Ford: Given the situational qualifiers we spoke about, do you think the Lakers made the right choice by selecting Russell at No. 2?
While NBA folks had him rated No. 2 on my Big Board, I wrote the Lakers should've taken Porzingis in my Grade A Mock the week before the draft. Based on the very early returns, I'd stand by that -- especially given the Lakers' current personnel. Many of these situational issues would've gone away had they selected Porzingis.
Pelton: I think I'm inclined to agree. You mentioned in last week's discussion that Porzingis was underscouted, and that was certainly the case for me. Though Porzingis and Russell had nearly identical WARP projections, I rated Russell higher on my subjective rankings in part because I was more familiar with his strengths and how they would translate to the NBA than Porzingis' game.
I don't think Okafor or Mudiay would look much better in the Lakers' system than Russell. (Can you imagine Okafor as the last line of defense behind the L.A. guards?)
Porzingis, however, has shown he can be effective without the ball thanks to his size and offensive rebounding. Given that NBA performance tends to be more predictive than pre-draft projections, I would lean Porzingis over Russell if we redrafted today.