Jason Thompson
- Thread starter Tarindel
- Start date
Two more statistical blurbs on Thompson:
From a Basketballprospectus.com on draft sleepers:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=368
Jason Thompson (6'11" SR, PF, Rider)
Thompson is a likely mid- to late- first round pick, but he has lottery talent. Thompson posted an offensive rating of 110.9, 23rd in the nation among high-usage players. He shot 57.8 percent from the field on two-point shots. Most impressive, he blocked 8.6 percent of opponents' two-point attempts while he was on the floor, the 46th-best qualifying rate in the country. Thompson combines those numbers with some of the physical attributes that scouts love--great leaping ability, speed and explosiveness in the open floor. Thompson sprouted four inches while in college so he's a late bloomer. His jump shot is a work in progress (just 34 three-point attempts as a senior) but he does seem to have an affinity for playing a face-up game, a necessity because of his slender build. It's a wonder Thompson doesn't project higher in mock drafts. He's going to be a better pro than similarly-sized Donte Greene of Syracuse.
The same article also calls Singletary a good sleeper prospect. Nothing on Ewing Jr. unfortunatley
And from a Draft Express article on Win Scores and how they translate to the NBA and player ranks:
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/2008-Win-Scores-NBA-Draft-Preview-2932/
Rider’s Jason Thompson was the NCAA’s 2nd place finisher in rebounding (after Beasley) and offers an impressive 7.5 PAWS/40 though most of that comes against weak competition.
From a Basketballprospectus.com on draft sleepers:
http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=368
Jason Thompson (6'11" SR, PF, Rider)
Thompson is a likely mid- to late- first round pick, but he has lottery talent. Thompson posted an offensive rating of 110.9, 23rd in the nation among high-usage players. He shot 57.8 percent from the field on two-point shots. Most impressive, he blocked 8.6 percent of opponents' two-point attempts while he was on the floor, the 46th-best qualifying rate in the country. Thompson combines those numbers with some of the physical attributes that scouts love--great leaping ability, speed and explosiveness in the open floor. Thompson sprouted four inches while in college so he's a late bloomer. His jump shot is a work in progress (just 34 three-point attempts as a senior) but he does seem to have an affinity for playing a face-up game, a necessity because of his slender build. It's a wonder Thompson doesn't project higher in mock drafts. He's going to be a better pro than similarly-sized Donte Greene of Syracuse.
The same article also calls Singletary a good sleeper prospect. Nothing on Ewing Jr. unfortunatley
And from a Draft Express article on Win Scores and how they translate to the NBA and player ranks:
http://www.draftexpress.com/article/2008-Win-Scores-NBA-Draft-Preview-2932/
Rider’s Jason Thompson was the NCAA’s 2nd place finisher in rebounding (after Beasley) and offers an impressive 7.5 PAWS/40 though most of that comes against weak competition.
Ryan Thompson is a good player-- the best perimeter defender Rider has. Shame he got hurt when we had to play a good game against Siena to have a chance at the NCAA tournament. I think we were down 2 of our starters for that game. I don't think he is an NBA prospect though, but put up good numbers.
Reading some posts-- I do think Jason Thompson will be able to be a good defender in the league very quickly. He is a big guy and was able to step up and guard anyone on the floor if he was called to do it. Charron Fisher- averaged like 28 points a game lit us up the first time we played him. The second time, there were several critical parts of the game where Jason Thompson stepped out to guard him. We won that game.
I do think he has to work on getting in position better for defensive rebounds. It seemed like he relied on his athleticism too much, and thus was called for over-the-back calls too often.
Reading some posts-- I do think Jason Thompson will be able to be a good defender in the league very quickly. He is a big guy and was able to step up and guard anyone on the floor if he was called to do it. Charron Fisher- averaged like 28 points a game lit us up the first time we played him. The second time, there were several critical parts of the game where Jason Thompson stepped out to guard him. We won that game.
I do think he has to work on getting in position better for defensive rebounds. It seemed like he relied on his athleticism too much, and thus was called for over-the-back calls too often.
Last edited:
Thanks for your keen insights from Jersey Broncs-land.
Check this out Kings Fans!
http://www.gobroncs.com/
Check this out Kings Fans!
http://www.gobroncs.com/
Are you getting his Ryan Thompson(Jason's brother) description confused with what he says about Jason? Because they are 2 different players. In the first part he's talking about Jason's brother, 6'7'' perimeter player Ryan Thompson(who got injured before they played the game that determined whether they made the tournament or not).
Yeah I know. But still, 3 or 4 of the guys he talked about were Euros drafted last year or guys injured that didn't get to play. So for Jason to be the 13th or 14th most likely ROY candidate, that's pretty decent.
I see this pick as real similar to last year when Detroit drafted Rodney Stuckey over guys like Crittenton and people were surprised and said they made a mistake. Then as soon as the summer league started, it was clear he was a baller. Stuckey was a guy who came from a smaller school, averaged real nice numbers, people questioned his competition, but ultimately he came through for Detroit in the playoffs and showed he was ready to play immediately.
Also, just because a guy can play immediately doesn't mean they don't have potential. Again, look at Stuckey. Detroit's FO is in love with the guy and thinks he can be a potential superstar. People said that Stuckey could play right away but didn't have great potential but now, everyone thinks he does have good potential. People just saw his numbers in college and said he can play, but he won't get much better. People saw him play in the NBA and how much athleticism he has, as well as his skill set and he has stuff he can and will improve on, then they see he has a lot of potential to get better still.
I think Thompson is like that too. Just because he can dribble, pass, shoot, score in the post, doesn't mean he can't get better. He has the athleticism and work ethic to improve, he's also only 21. Just because he has skills he can already use doesn't mean he can't improve. I've never gotten that logic.
I also didn't like the logic that just because Randolph needs to put on 5 million pounds, learn a post game, and get a jump shot, that he has a bunch of potential. IMO it's more like bust potential. Because he needs to gain 20 pounds before he can even play as a SF, and 40-50 before he can play as a PF. He also needs to learn to shoot and get some sort of post game. He's a bit overrated as an athlte and even though he's a good ball handler his post game/offensive moves are all awkward looking.
With Jason, he CAN play right away. He has an NBA ready body pretty much because he already weighs 240 or 250. He already has a pretty decent post game but he can improve there and he already has a good jump shot. He's a good ball handler too, and a good passer just like Randolph. He's a good rebounder who grabs rebounds outside of his area because of his height and length. He's just as tall and has just as much length as Randolph, he's a good athlete also, his movement looks more fluid. He can still improve his rebounding though as far as boxing out goes, he can still learn some of the more advanced post moves, and he can still learn more about handling the ball. His passing(while already good) and defensive knowledge can also still improve.
The only difference IMO is that Jason can play now, Randolph can't, because Jason spent a few more years in college and is ready physically. But the upside physically is the same, 6'11'' with athleticism and long arms for each player. Both can handle the ball and rebound. Randolph just isn't there physically, and his game offensively isn't advanced like Jason's is(post game/jump shot). So IMO the top potential is similar.
Another thing is if you take a guy like Randolph who is really raw, when he gains 40 pounds of muscle or whatever how do you know he won't lose some of his athleticism. He doesn't seem much more athletic, if at all, than Jason does IMO and Jason weighs 40 or 50 pounds more of muscle. How do you know he won't be LESS athletic when he gains the required weight? You don't know if he'll get the post game or jump shot Jason has.
Even though I was dissapointed we didn't get a name player, I was high on Thompson before we picked him. I remember reviewing a lot of his game film, highlights, box scores, etc. and being real impressed a month or 3 ago. I think he can be a good player. Givony had him at 14 in his final mock also, and JG at draftexpress is A LOT smarter/more accurate than that moron Ford. JG, Dick Vitale, Donnie Walsh, Don Nelson, all seemed to like Thompson. Chad Ford's analasys this morning on Mike&Mike was "the Kings gave him the kiss of death as a draft pick, they said they liked him because he blew them away in workouts". Well I don't see how that's a kiss of death, should we have picked a guy who looked awful in workouts and gave him the upside tag? I understand there ARE players with a lot of upside that went after him like Speights. But now that I'm thinking rationally I don't see why Jason who is 6'11'', very strong, and pretty athletic doesn't have the upside some of these other guys do.
He didn't go against great competition for most of the year but he completely owned Beasley. That means a lot IMO. I have faith he'll be a good player. Al Jefferson had questionable competition in high school, had a good post game already, great numbers, etc. He's turned out well. Kevin and Stuckey both stayed 3 or 4 years, both had great numbers, both played vs questionable competition, and both look like good players. I'm not sure whether LSU played anyone good this year to be honest so I'm not sure if Randolph played good competition or not either.
I think we should give JT the benefit of the doubt. He has potential and physically, mentally, he can start playing now. But he has the tools to improve on stuff also.
Eh, don't really feel like addressing your whole post. All I can say is whatever, we'll find out eventually if he was worth the pick. My feeling is that if he does prove that he was worth the pick it's going to be because this draft ultimately wasn't very good and the alternatives were nearly just as bad/mediocre. I really just don't care anymore, it's not that important; just a stupid draft pick.
Last edited:
I don't get it. Where did I say that if he becomes a good player it's because the rest of the draft was weak? Why would I even say that? It makes no sense. My point was that if he proves that he wasn't a reach at 12 my feeling is that it's more likely because of the weakness of the picks that were on the board and not because he ends up being a really good.
I'm sorry but this bothers me. Earlier somone posted an article saying Jason averaged 7.5 blks per 40min. then back that up by saying it was against weak competition. Did I miss something or do the shots actually go higher in Div 1 than they do in Div 2 therefore they are harder to block? The competition thing is hooey to me. I am sure some will disagree but, thats my opinion it can't be changed.
About the level of competition... you know it kind of goes both ways. I watched that interview with Thompson and the girl asked him about what it's like when the other team is completely gunning for you. And when you're such a big fish in a little pond, the opposing team's game plan is essentially "We have to shut down Jason Thompson." And then they go out and throw three guys at him at all times.
So yeah. It's not the same level of competition. But at the same time, it's not like he had Chris Douglas-Roberts out there on the wing. Every team was gunning for Jason Thompson. He still put up the stats. It says something.
So yeah. It's not the same level of competition. But at the same time, it's not like he had Chris Douglas-Roberts out there on the wing. Every team was gunning for Jason Thompson. He still put up the stats. It says something.
thats what im concerned about randolph...bmiller52 stated what i was worried about in the long run
if randolph gains more weight will he be effective? hell be playing more guard and SF now if he wants playing time since he isnt big enough for PF's and C's .. by the time he gains enough pounds for PF he WILL THEN HAVE TO LEARN how to play PF and guard them... i dont know how long will it take till he gains the desired weight... 250 in 3 years or so? and that doesnt mean he will retain his vert... his lateral speed.. his durability and stuff... the way thompson is pretty quick on and pretty athletic for his weight he would have been a good fit for nellies small ball...but its a good thing we picked him
also there will be a very good reason for him to fall that far... same goes for bayless.. even if bayless falls to us i think GP would have picked JT still since he never drafts some one who he didnt work out
thats what im concerned about randolph...bmiller52 stated what i was worried about in the long run
if randolph gains more weight will he be effective? hell be playing more guard and SF now if he wants playing time since he isnt big enough for PF's and C's .. by the time he gains enough pounds for PF he WILL THEN HAVE TO LEARN how to play PF and guard them... i dont know how long will it take till he gains the desired weight... 250 in 3 years or so? and that doesnt mean he will retain his vert... his lateral speed.. his durability and stuff... the way thompson is pretty quick on and pretty athletic for his weight he would have been a good fit for nellies small ball...but its a good thing we picked him
also there will be a very good reason for him to fall that far... same goes for bayless.. even if bayless falls to us i think GP would have picked JT still since he never drafts some one who he didnt work out
if randolph gains more weight will he be effective? hell be playing more guard and SF now if he wants playing time since he isnt big enough for PF's and C's .. by the time he gains enough pounds for PF he WILL THEN HAVE TO LEARN how to play PF and guard them... i dont know how long will it take till he gains the desired weight... 250 in 3 years or so? and that doesnt mean he will retain his vert... his lateral speed.. his durability and stuff... the way thompson is pretty quick on and pretty athletic for his weight he would have been a good fit for nellies small ball...but its a good thing we picked him
also there will be a very good reason for him to fall that far... same goes for bayless.. even if bayless falls to us i think GP would have picked JT still since he never drafts some one who he didnt work out
Also, I'd have no problem with Randolph even ending up sticking at SF. I believe he'll become a very good 2 way player, he has very good guard skills, mid range jumper, and good ability to change directions.
Last edited:
Sure know how to sweet talk a fellow into having a dialogue, don't you?
Are you suggesting that the level of competition is the same against the MAAC as it is against the ACC? That they get the same quality of players? That the games are as competitive?
The comments about competition, whether you agree with them or not, are based on the belief that it's by far easier to look good when you play thirty games a year against Canisius, Manhattan, Sienna and Niagra than when you have to play thirty games against North Carolina, Maryland, Duke and Georgia Tech. It's the same principle as a kid who takes "regular" classes in high school, as opposed to a kid in honors classes. An "A" in "regular" English Comp is not generally considered to be the same as an "A" in honors English Comp. And therefore, since the competition is not at the same level, the paradigm further extends to the belief that the numbers should not be considered equivalent to similar or, in some cases, lesser numbers against better players.
Is it your contention that the level of competition is the same?
I'm going to beg to differ. To me, that's like saying that getting triple-teamed by you, me and Entity is just as good as as getting single defensive coverage by Tim Duncan. Quality of competition means something, no matter how many people are guarding you.
Are you suggesting that the level of competition is the same against the MAAC as it is against the ACC? That they get the same quality of players? That the games are as competitive?
The comments about competition, whether you agree with them or not, are based on the belief that it's by far easier to look good when you play thirty games a year against Canisius, Manhattan, Sienna and Niagra than when you have to play thirty games against North Carolina, Maryland, Duke and Georgia Tech. It's the same principle as a kid who takes "regular" classes in high school, as opposed to a kid in honors classes. An "A" in "regular" English Comp is not generally considered to be the same as an "A" in honors English Comp. And therefore, since the competition is not at the same level, the paradigm further extends to the belief that the numbers should not be considered equivalent to similar or, in some cases, lesser numbers against better players.
Is it your contention that the level of competition is the same?
I'm going to beg to differ. To me, that's like saying that getting triple-teamed by you, me and Entity is just as good as as getting single defensive coverage by Tim Duncan. Quality of competition means something, no matter how many people are guarding you.
That's because all five players on the court for Duke and Memphis are superior to the players from Rider and Sienna. Which was the point; the only reason why Thompson was getting double and triple-teamed in the first place was because the guys he was playing against were so bad, and that he wouldn't have been double-teamed against Duke or Memphis.