and with the #1 pick in the 2009 NBA draft the Kings select...
- Thread starter RiffRaff
- Start date
The official measurement is not out yet, but in the NY Daily News, Bob Hill said Blake Griffin is TALLER than 6'10.
All I have to say is, if Griffin is 6'10, let alone taller than 6'10, then it's final: he's the guy we want. The drop off from Griffin to the rest of the pool is so huge that there's no logical reason for us to trade Griffin for Rubio if we land the #1 pick.
Regarding Bob Hill, I've always respected his opinion. The guy wrote a prediction piece right after the 1998 draft and he was spot on for every lottery player: that Dirk would be a star if he's given time to mature, Tractor, kandiMan and LaFrentz were not stars but good role players; JWill and Hughes would be exciting but again, not stars. It was like he was looking into a crystal ball when he wrote the article.
Full disclosure: Griffin is working with Bob Hill, so there's incentive for Hill to hype his client. Still, I don't think Hill is too far off in his assessment.
All I have to say is, if Griffin is 6'10, let alone taller than 6'10, then it's final: he's the guy we want. The drop off from Griffin to the rest of the pool is so huge that there's no logical reason for us to trade Griffin for Rubio if we land the #1 pick.
Regarding Bob Hill, I've always respected his opinion. The guy wrote a prediction piece right after the 1998 draft and he was spot on for every lottery player: that Dirk would be a star if he's given time to mature, Tractor, kandiMan and LaFrentz were not stars but good role players; JWill and Hughes would be exciting but again, not stars. It was like he was looking into a crystal ball when he wrote the article.
Full disclosure: Griffin is working with Bob Hill, so there's incentive for Hill to hype his client. Still, I don't think Hill is too far off in his assessment.
Last edited:
I highly doubt Hill was referring to college measurement. But we'll find out soon enough. However, if Blake is 6'10 in shoes, he doesn't need great standing reach to be a great player, imo. I think standing reach and wing span are more important evaluation tool for undersized guys. For a full sized player, they don't hurt, but not a deal maker.
No, reach is important for all players. Height is important as well, but it also depends a lot on how they're proportioned. Shoulder height is really more important than actual height, because you don't use your neck/head length for anything except maybe to see at a higher angle. Since he's a PF that means less. Shoulder height will work towards bodying up and getting position, but length/reach is important for grabbing rebounds, blocking shots, getting into passing lanes, and (most importantly) shooting over defenders in the post.
Last edited:
Standing reach is not the be-all-end-all, when you come down to it, it's a combination of height, shoulder height, standing reach, arm length, wingspan, vertical leap, quickness off the ground, quickness of repeated jumps, height of repeated jumps, body control, strength, and of course, skill.
No one player have all the tools. A great player may lack in one area but make it up in other areas. Standing reach is just one factor - many good rebounders don't have great standing reach (see David Lee, Kevin Love). Many good scorer don't have it either (see Barkley, LJ, Millsap, Amare). It is a vital factor for shot-blockers but Griffin is not a shot-blocker, so this point is mute.
If Griffin is indeed 6'10, unless he has a ginormous head, his shoulder height is probably about typical for a 6'10 PF. You know his wingspan, athleticism, strength, and off the ground quickness are top notch, so really, if his standing reach turns out to be not as long as a guy like Melvin Ely, is it really a deal-breaker? Btw, Ely's standing reach and wingspan was out of this world for a 6'10 guy. What does it translate to in the NBA? Nothing.
No one player have all the tools. A great player may lack in one area but make it up in other areas. Standing reach is just one factor - many good rebounders don't have great standing reach (see David Lee, Kevin Love). Many good scorer don't have it either (see Barkley, LJ, Millsap, Amare). It is a vital factor for shot-blockers but Griffin is not a shot-blocker, so this point is mute.
If Griffin is indeed 6'10, unless he has a ginormous head, his shoulder height is probably about typical for a 6'10 PF. You know his wingspan, athleticism, strength, and off the ground quickness are top notch, so really, if his standing reach turns out to be not as long as a guy like Melvin Ely, is it really a deal-breaker? Btw, Ely's standing reach and wingspan was out of this world for a 6'10 guy. What does it translate to in the NBA? Nothing.
The problem being that your argument is predicated on the idea that I suggested standing reach was the be-all, end-all. I didn't.
It's not the only factor, but I think it's a pretty big one because you don't have to give out as much energy to reach as you do to jump. I think it's very important in terms of contesting shots and shooting over defenders in the post. Low post scoring is one of Griffin's question marks IMO. So I'm not saying his whole career depends on his reach, but since I'm not completely convinced of his "greatness" in some areas, it's a pretty significant piece of the pie for me in figuring his upside. It changes standards for other areas of his game, for instance he'll have to develop his perimeter and face-up skill to a higher level to become a quality scorer.
It's not the only factor, but I think it's a pretty big one because you don't have to give out as much energy to reach as you do to jump. I think it's very important in terms of contesting shots and shooting over defenders in the post. Low post scoring is one of Griffin's question marks IMO. So I'm not saying his whole career depends on his reach, but since I'm not completely convinced of his "greatness" in some areas, it's a pretty significant piece of the pie for me in figuring his upside. It changes standards for other areas of his game, for instance he'll have to develop his perimeter and face-up skill to a higher level to become a quality scorer.
Last edited:
You keep coming back to standing reach. I'm not saying Griffin's reach is short because we don't know yet, but if it is there are other ways to make up for it. Better conditioning so he can keep jumping without exhausting his energy, get better post positions, developing better footwork, etc. A lot of post scoring is not about who has the higher reach but about who has the better strength, ability to get position, footwork, and shooting touch. SAR doesn't have as high a reach as Tim Duncan, but Duncan couldn't stop him from scoring in the post.
You said standing reach isn't the be-all-end-all but in another breath you basically suggested that it affects whether he's effective in the post. It doesn't. Not when he's bigger, stronger, and has the post skill to go along with it. The only thing that will determines whether Griffin is a good post scorer is how much time he spends at the gym.
You said standing reach isn't the be-all-end-all but in another breath you basically suggested that it affects whether he's effective in the post. It doesn't. Not when he's bigger, stronger, and has the post skill to go along with it. The only thing that will determines whether Griffin is a good post scorer is how much time he spends at the gym.
The guy scored 23 points a game on 65% shooting last year. It wasn't from popping mid-range jumpers...he was hand's down the best post scorer in college last year.
What number are you looking for on the standing reach? I don't see what the big worry is. Pulling it from my nether regions I'll guess its 8'11" or so, which should work out just fine.
What number are you looking for on the standing reach? I don't see what the big worry is. Pulling it from my nether regions I'll guess its 8'11" or so, which should work out just fine.
Griffin does not have a polished post game. He has very few post moves. He was too athletic and too strong for college players. It's that simple.
That said, he is a smooth player and I do think he can develop a post game. He has a good understanding and great physical tools. I'd be ecstatic with him. I think he can be a franchise player.
That said, he is a smooth player and I do think he can develop a post game. He has a good understanding and great physical tools. I'd be ecstatic with him. I think he can be a franchise player.
I'm lighting candles as an offering to the lottery god's for tomorrow night. 
Not to belabor the point, but height and standing reach are equally important. I understand why some people thinks standing reach is more important, but they don't realize that better height allows for a higher field of vision. A taller person can see better than a shorter person even if their standing reach is the same. With everything being equal, the taller player can see better over the defense in shooting and in passing out of double teams. So I wouldn't say height is an inferior stat to standing reach. Like I said, height, reach, wingspan, vertical, quickness are all important and should be taken as a whole.
Here's a Chad Ford article on the lottery preview:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=LotteryPreview-090519
Says that we would most likely take Thabeet at three. I know would be an extremely helpful piece in winning a championship, but FIRST you need to get the stars and then you should fill in the role players. Fans here would probably be pretty dissapointed and truthfully he wouldn't get many more butts in the seats. After this long season, we need someone that can provide a spark to the team.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=LotteryPreview-090519
Says that we would most likely take Thabeet at three.
I know would be an extremely helpful piece in winning a championship, but FIRST you need to get the stars and then you should fill in the role players. Fans here would probably be pretty dissapointed and truthfully he wouldn't get many more butts in the seats. After this long season, we need someone that can provide a spark to the team.
Here's a Chad Ford article on the lottery preview:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=LotteryPreview-090519
Says that we would most likely take Thabeet at three. I know would be an extremely helpful piece in winning a championship, but FIRST you need to get the stars and then you should fill in the role players. Fans here would probably be pretty dissapointed and truthfully he wouldn't get many more butts in the seats. After this long season, we need someone that can provide a spark to the team.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=LotteryPreview-090519
Says that we would most likely take Thabeet at three.
I know would be an extremely helpful piece in winning a championship, but FIRST you need to get the stars and then you should fill in the role players. Fans here would probably be pretty dissapointed and truthfully he wouldn't get many more butts in the seats. After this long season, we need someone that can provide a spark to the team.
Fans want flash but the game isn't won by flash. Never has been, in any sport. Its won in the trenches, on the blocks, in the paint.
Well, Tyson Chandler was just recently on the trade market, but that is besides my point. My point mainly is that Thabeet really isn't likely to have a very large effect soon. He definitely isn't as much a risk, but he doesn't have too much upside.He has a decent chance of being a great shotblocker and rebounder and he likely won't have much more effect on the team. Sacramento is very unlikely to get a star through FA or a trade, so drafting is pretty much the only option. We need that #1 guy first and a trade or FA pickup for a shotblocker and rebounder is possible later.
Um...we were THE worst defensive team in basketball last year. The truth be told, other than the junkball teams that don't even try as part of their "strategy" I am not exaggerating when I say I think we might have been the worst defensive team in the last 5 years. An impact shotblocker/rebounder might have MORE immediate impact on our squad of softies than any other piece save an elite #1 option. We allowed an unheard of 109ppg last year -- that's the worst in Sacto franchise history. If dramatic moves are not taken to correct that we can add all the scorers we want and never be a .500 team.
Yes, I took that into account, but Thabeet won't solve all of our defensive woes. He likely will have some trouble adjusting to the NBA game also. It is almost necessary to have an NBA superstar or a few NBA stars on a team to be able to win a championship. I just think this is the best option to try and get a star or maybe one could even turn to be a superstar. I think our debate is just two differing opinions to how to get the rebuilding process started.
Well Bricky is right about our defense last year. It was horrible. And I agree that a good shot blocker would be step in the right direction, but not a cure all. First of all, where to put the blame is hard to figure without knowing what the defensive philosophy was. After going back and watching some of the games from a defensive perspective, it seemed to me that the breakdown always started on the perimiter, and the inability of said players to switch back. Too many times I saw a big guarding a small and vise versa. A shot blocker is the last line of defense, and a great value if you have one. But if you can stop the ball on the perimiter, then the need for one becomes less.
By the way folks, I compare playing defense in the NBA to playing on the offensive line in football. The more an offensive line plays together the better they get. Everyone knows what the other player is doing, and if they're all in sync, Wa La, sucess! Of couse, you do need quality players and good coaching, but I think you get my thought.
By the way folks, I compare playing defense in the NBA to playing on the offensive line in football. The more an offensive line plays together the better they get. Everyone knows what the other player is doing, and if they're all in sync, Wa La, sucess! Of couse, you do need quality players and good coaching, but I think you get my thought.