What's new
By:

Just how small is Burke?

This issue is completely overblown. But I love it. If the top of his skull was two inches closer to a basketball rim, that would be so important that he might've gone first.
 
Bodhi said:
If he was legit 6'3" but had a below ave wingspan, NO one would be talking about his size. As has been said, the top of your head really isn't getting a **** ton of use in the league these days. "Size" only means height to the media and then they perpetuate myths and fans start trying to say "smart" catch phrases at the water cooler so they sound up to date on the local sports team.

"Dude, but I've really looked into Burke's's and I'm worried about his size. Side note: I sold like 14 alarms and a **** ton of Tahitian Noni before lunch!"
Click to expand...

You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.
 
Can't wait to see Burke murk dem hoes. Lol @ the height concerns.
 
I am not worried about his size. He is going to improve his strength and even his speed once he gets to P3. Look how much Kanter improved his quickness and jumping after going there. Burke is not a finished product. His height/reach are just fine.
 
jazzfan1971 said:
I've always considered 6'1" to be prototypical PG size. And I hear a lot of hand wringing about Burke being undersized. So, I tried to get a feel for what sizes PGs in the league really were. Quite a few of the players in here didn't have actual data to use so I estimated. Those estimates could be wildly off. If anyone has better numbers they'd like me to use I'll be happy to edit it.

https://www.numsum.com/spreadsheet/show_raw/131533

Basically, it shows Burke to be about 1.25 inches short, a tad over average wingspan, and about 1.25 inches smaller standing reach.

Of all the measurements for a PG I believe wingspan is the most important.
Click to expand...

Wow... this is really eye opening.

It's "reach" that's really important. He's got the same or higher reach as George Hill, Parker, Lowry, Wall, Collison, Curry, Felton, Lillard, Kemba, Chalmers, Conley, Paul, Lawson, Jennings, Nelson, Thomas....all together 16 players!!!!!!!

Wow that's half the league!!!!!!
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Wow... this is really eye opening.

It's "reach" that's really important. He's got the same or higher reach as George Hill, Parker, Lowry, Wall, Collison, Curry, Felton, Lillard, Kemba, Chalmers, Conley, Paul, Lawson, Jennings, Nelson, Thomas....all together 16 players!!!!!!!

Wow that's half the league!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Wall should not be in that list, he is a freak with a 8'5" reach.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Wow... this is really eye opening.

It's "reach" that's really important. He's got the same or higher reach as George Hill, Parker, Lowry, Wall, Collison, Curry, Felton, Lillard, Kemba, Chalmers, Conley, Paul, Lawson, Jennings, Nelson, Thomas....all together 16 players!!!!!!!

Wow that's half the league!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I'd say wingspan is more important than reach for guards.
 
Bodhi said:
If he was legit 6'3" but had a below ave wingspan, NO one would be talking about his size. As has been said, the top of your head really isn't getting a **** ton of use in the league these days. "Size" only means height to the media and then they perpetuate myths and fans start trying to say "smart" catch phrases at the water cooler so they sound up to date on the local sports team.

"Dude, but I've really looked into Burke's's and I'm worried about his size. Side note: I sold like 14 alarms and a **** ton of Tahitian Noni before lunch!"
Click to expand...

A perfect example: Burke is 2" shorter than Kyrie Irving, but has a wingspan 2" longer.
 
Burke has basically the same dimensions as Eric Bledsoe, minus half an inch.

Burke: 5'11.75" w/o shoes, 6'1.25" w/shoes, 6'5.5" wingspan, 8'1.5" standing reach

Bledsoe: 6'0.25" w/o shoes, 6'1.5" w/shoes, 6'7.5" wingspan, 8'2" standing reach

Bledsoe has 2 inches more wingspan, probably because he has broader shoulders. Bledsoe is also leaner and probably a better raw athlete.

Burke should probably work on getting a bit stronger.
 
Who cares how tall your PG is? We've seen the deterioration of the PG position so much that we quibble over the most irrelevant things pertaining to the position. I'll list off two things that I hate seeing in PGs:

1. Guys who can shoot but can't pass.
2. Guys who can pass but can't shoot.

You also have a handful of guys that can't do either, but we get excited about their athleticism or slashing ability.

How many PGs can you find that can both shoot with range and pass?
/nonsense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top