D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Gonna send him a pic of me at age 14, and see how accurately he can predict my current dimensions.
2014 Draft Combine
- Thread starter mellow
- Start date
Gonna send him a pic of me at age 14, and see how accurately he can predict my current dimensions.
orangello
Well-Known Member
You've seen the pic?
orangello
Well-Known Member
Tarkanian
Well-Known Member
you guys are reading too much into these measurements.
what if a player has length, one inch shorter than expected?
maybe he is a great player, with court vision and a deeper understanding of the game, which will make up for this huge (?) disadvantage.
You guys would be dissing Larry Bird right now, for having T-Rex arms and a non-stellar jumping among others.
But basketball is not horse-racing or RB-Football!
There is a mental side of the game, which as important -if not more- as the physical part!
If that were not the case, Stockton could have never played in NBA, nor Bird!
Paul Millsaps, R. Rondos of the world prove the case, mind&fundamentals >> physical factors.
what if a player has length, one inch shorter than expected?
maybe he is a great player, with court vision and a deeper understanding of the game, which will make up for this huge (?) disadvantage.
You guys would be dissing Larry Bird right now, for having T-Rex arms and a non-stellar jumping among others.
But basketball is not horse-racing or RB-Football!
There is a mental side of the game, which as important -if not more- as the physical part!
If that were not the case, Stockton could have never played in NBA, nor Bird!
Paul Millsaps, R. Rondos of the world prove the case, mind&fundamentals >> physical factors.
Jazz4ever
Well-Known Member
I agree with the premise, but there is a "breaking point" where a guy is just too small to play a position. Randle for instance, was at that breaking point. Today he measured a little better than expected, and has probably cleared the breaking point. If he tests out well athletically, he can further clear it.
Tarkanian
Well-Known Member
Rondo is what he is, not because of it doe, I'd say.
He is a team first PG, who is (maybe too) willing to play D.
and I must add, he has an incredible understanding of the game, as well as good court vision and naturally a high BB-IQ.
These qualities > other deficiencies .
If his wingspan were, say, 3 inches short, he could have had fewer steals, I accept that.
That said, he would still be a very very good player.
agreed utterly and totally, Sire.
Everybody is now praising Vonleh. When I look at the numbers it is like Randle is an inch short here and two there.
Except his hand size (bad joke alert), which has further ramifications and insuniations; I can't see why that inch should matter, IF Randle is fundamentally the better player.
now that is a big if.
measurements are just a part of equation. if play A and player B play same position and have a similar basketball ability then GMs/coaches would want a guy with better measurements.
players with ideal sizes tend to do better too. but yeah, you can't measure heart & desire. there will always be tom bradys out there.
players with ideal sizes tend to do better too. but yeah, you can't measure heart & desire. there will always be tom bradys out there.
i grow on people
i know these are stereotypical thinking, but IMO there are alot of truth to this:
1. big hands - less fumble, helps body control
2. long arms - helps in block
3. big bun buns - helps post game
4. long wingspan - better defense, keeps players in front of them
5. wide, but small non flat feet - more agile feet, less chance for your feet to get tangled
6. too much muscle - lack stamina
7. ideal height/weight/speed ratio - no problem in most defensive situation
mcbucket would've been better if he was classic PF sized. but now that we know he is clearly 3. can he score? yes. but does he have ideal size/weight/speed ratio to defend other 3? i doubt it. so most likely guys like that become a situational player and won't be able to play starter minutes.
me saying smart is 6ft 3 max
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?14955-Following-potential-2014-draftees/page793
said somewhere that i'm leaning towards him being 6ft 2 ish barefoot. his height doesn't hurt him if he can play full time point guard. and in today's nba, i think he can play PG.
but even with his ginormous wingspan, he doesn't have ideal height for SG. let's say smart flops at being PG. turnovers, make poor decisions, gets impatient. then what? he has that tweener size where he can play 2. but that means team is giving up on him as being a PG.
1. big hands - less fumble, helps body control
2. long arms - helps in block
3. big bun buns - helps post game
4. long wingspan - better defense, keeps players in front of them
5. wide, but small non flat feet - more agile feet, less chance for your feet to get tangled
6. too much muscle - lack stamina
7. ideal height/weight/speed ratio - no problem in most defensive situation
mcbucket would've been better if he was classic PF sized. but now that we know he is clearly 3. can he score? yes. but does he have ideal size/weight/speed ratio to defend other 3? i doubt it. so most likely guys like that become a situational player and won't be able to play starter minutes.
me saying smart is 6ft 3 max
https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?14955-Following-potential-2014-draftees/page793
said somewhere that i'm leaning towards him being 6ft 2 ish barefoot. his height doesn't hurt him if he can play full time point guard. and in today's nba, i think he can play PG.
but even with his ginormous wingspan, he doesn't have ideal height for SG. let's say smart flops at being PG. turnovers, make poor decisions, gets impatient. then what? he has that tweener size where he can play 2. but that means team is giving up on him as being a PG.
Last edited: