Well well,
Since I started this post, I suppose y'all won't mind if I offer some perpective. First, I guess I should say that I'm honored my post got so much attention. My thoughts were generated from the initial premise that "GH is not an athlete", therefore I was very surprised to see his Vertical being even close to some of the top athletes. I neglected his wingspan, only because it was virtually identical with Turners. So in that I'll humbly take my whipping that some of you so obviously enjoy inflicting upon those who don't spend hours upon hours reading everything about every player. That said, I did do some cross comparisons, and he does stack up favorably against some pretty elite players in more categories than just vertical jump (i.e. hand length and width were comparable to Greg Monroe, Paul George, and Babbitt--all much bigger players; his Agility scores were better than Derrick Favors and right there with Ed Davis, Stanley Robinson and WESLEY JOHNSON (not sure what Thriller was smoking)...and his Sprint was better than Favors, Patterson, and other "supposed" superior athletes.) All this coming from Draft Express site (go to "Features" tab and click "Measurement History".)
Thriller, for someone with so much "supposed" evidence at his fingertips, I saw a lot more opinion and a lot less fact in your post. You talk it up big to give yourself credibility, but you did the same thing you accused me of, namely hand picking the comparisons you wanted to make (in order to make your case). You talk about his weight, height, and bodyfat??? First, weight is an issue for almost every draft pick. Second, you think 6 ft 7 to 6 ft 8 won't work in the NBA??? News flash, he's the same height almost exactly as Paul Milsap. And lastly, his body fat is not bad. Not superior, but not a liability either. Like the weight issue, most draft prospects need to lower their body fat some.
I think the reality is that some of you want him to fail (for whatever twisted reasons), as much as I want him to succeed, so I guess time will tell. I simply prefer to be an optimist, even if sometimes a naive one. Taking into account his physical abilities (positive and negative), I still am optimistic about his overall Basketball savvy (which you can't teach), and the other "intangibles" that lead many to say he will be special (and that he was a good pick). I won't hide behind the fact that I was looking for some silver lining data that could tell me he has a chance to make it "based on science". I was disappointed in the draft pick at first, so anything positive gives me a little hope that when people say he's a "special player", I can actually believe them. But I suppose there's no way to know whether "Science" or the "X factors" will win out at the end of the day. Again, time will tell. I just have to trust (only because I don't have the time and it's not my profession) that KOC and the Jazz FO made their decision based upon some evidence. It's sad that some of you spend so much time gathering data, and yet it's still biased!!!
So, again, let's give Hayward a chance. Because we don't really have a choice anyway (as long as he stays with the team, and assuming we want to remain Jazz fans). This is a holler out to all "True" Jazz fans!
