I agree that you have to look at the whole package. If Curry had exceptional vision, and he could be an exceptional assist guy - a Nash - then yes I would put him in the top 5 despite his non-athleticism. The way I look at it, at best Curry is a Bibby - good outside shooter, lousy defender, ok penetrator, pretty good assist guy. Personally, I don't want Bibby II on this team.
Evans dominated the PG's in Minny
- Thread starter JasonThompsonFan
- Start date
For the most part I think were in agreement. I certainly can't argue with you on the quickness part. You either are, or you aren't. I guess it is possible for a young player to grow another inch or two after being drafted. I thought it was interesting that Lawson was an inch taller at this years combine than he was at last years.
I brought up Hardaway, because I really liked him coming out of college. But the typical knock on him was, once again his athleticism and his size. Well the dude didn't have great end to end speed, but he had a great first step and a wicked crossover. Of course in my opinion he palmed the ball, but thats another discussion.
I brought up Hardaway, because I really liked him coming out of college. But the typical knock on him was, once again his athleticism and his size. Well the dude didn't have great end to end speed, but he had a great first step and a wicked crossover. Of course in my opinion he palmed the ball, but thats another discussion.
I actually was asking why you accept one rule that dismisses a certain category of player, but are not fazed in projecting a guy out to be a star(Evans) when other guys in his mold so often fail. You don't accept my premise about big point guards? Fine. I would argue (as I did in my previous post) that shooting is just one of several problems that big points have in transitioning to the NBA. My question to you is this: who are the big point guards who came out in, say, the last 10 years, who meet your criterion for being "stars"? How many are actually better than the guys you described as "mediocre to good players"? And finally, counting the guys you deem to be "stars" measured against those who are not, are the probabilities for Evans becoming a star point actually in your favor?
I agree that the odds are stacked against small, nonathletic point guards. I just think the rule better fits a Bobby Hurley (who actually was a little small) than a Steph Curry. I would also agree with you that Curry will likely never become a franchise player, as those players typically are supremely athletically gifted. The problem is, IMO, that Evans is himself not an elite athlete.
Once again, your claim that Curry is small is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, his height is at the high side of average for his position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_position He measured taller than Deron Williams, for example.
Finally, the assertion that John Stockton was "exceptionally quick" is quite frankly puzzling. Tony Parker and CP3 have exceptional quickness. John Stockton? Exceptionally quick hands, maybe. Exceptionally quick mind, definitely.
I agree that the odds are stacked against small, nonathletic point guards. I just think the rule better fits a Bobby Hurley (who actually was a little small) than a Steph Curry. I would also agree with you that Curry will likely never become a franchise player, as those players typically are supremely athletically gifted. The problem is, IMO, that Evans is himself not an elite athlete.
Once again, your claim that Curry is small is inaccurate. As far as I can tell, his height is at the high side of average for his position. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basketball_position He measured taller than Deron Williams, for example.
Finally, the assertion that John Stockton was "exceptionally quick" is quite frankly puzzling. Tony Parker and CP3 have exceptional quickness. John Stockton? Exceptionally quick hands, maybe. Exceptionally quick mind, definitely.
I agree with most of your points. His handle is the most intriguing part of his game to me. I believe the elite players in the NBA usually share two characteristics:
1: A special aptitude for getting to the rim
2: An elite ability to finish at the rim, which subsequently puts them at the free-throw line quite a bit.
I think Evans may have the first, but am unsure about the second. He lays it up instead of dunking far too often, IMO. Why is this? Lack of athleticism? I dunno. Perhaps he will gain the savvy around the rim of a Paul Pierce, with experience. Who knows? If I were convinced he could finish at a high level, then I would support the team taking him.
I don't think he is a point guard. I think he has scorers mentality is in his DNA. If we take him, then I think we need to move Martin beforehand as I believe an Evans at the point experiment would fail, after which we would lose leverage in trading either.
All the guys we are looking at at four have some pretty big question marks. I am prepared to rationalize our selection, regardless of who it is.
1: A special aptitude for getting to the rim
2: An elite ability to finish at the rim, which subsequently puts them at the free-throw line quite a bit.
I think Evans may have the first, but am unsure about the second. He lays it up instead of dunking far too often, IMO. Why is this? Lack of athleticism? I dunno. Perhaps he will gain the savvy around the rim of a Paul Pierce, with experience. Who knows? If I were convinced he could finish at a high level, then I would support the team taking him.
I don't think he is a point guard. I think he has scorers mentality is in his DNA. If we take him, then I think we need to move Martin beforehand as I believe an Evans at the point experiment would fail, after which we would lose leverage in trading either.
All the guys we are looking at at four have some pretty big question marks. I am prepared to rationalize our selection, regardless of who it is.
I don't think he was comparing Evans to Penny, just looking for another successful "big" PG. And Penny had two inches or so on Evans. Magic Johnson had three. Even Jalen Rose had some success at the point and was bigger. Honestly, Evans isn't huge for a PG, just an inch or so bigger than Jason Kidd. I think the real issue is that he's not a true PG. For some teams that's not a big deal. But when his potential backcourt mate has a weak handle and isn't a playemaker himself, it's a bad pairing IMO.
Its not relevant. In a way its an abstract theory. To argue that their haven't been but a few tall point guards as proof that being tall elliminates one from being a good point guard, is like saying that my anti elephant spray works because there aren't any elephants in the room. But too often I think players are groomed in a certain direction because of their size. Sometimes to their disavantage.
My best friends son was the point guard at Del Campo with Matt Barnes. I watched a lot their games. First off, to say that the coaching was lacking would be an understatement. Secondly, guess what position Barnes played. You guessed it! Center. I'm sure that playing center at Del Campo really helped him when he got to UCLA. My point is, that because of their size, players are often projected to play a position, that doesn't fit their talent level.
Kids aren't born with a stamp that says point guard or center on them. What a bummer it would be if you were stamped center and you only grew to be 5'11" tall. End of career me thinks. Unless you play in the pygmy league. Unless your lucky enough to go to a highschool thats one of the elite basketball factory's, your probably at the mercy of the local physical fitness teacher who also doubles as the basketball coach.
College is where you should start to become refined. But with so many players doing one and done, that refinement is shortchanged. So its possible that a player with the talent to be a great point guard, and happened to be 6'6" tall, never had a chance to really develop those skills. Because someone at the time thought he would certainly look good at center in highschool, and he certainly would look good at the shooting guard position in college. Sometimes size, especially in the early stages, can steer a player away from the position he's best suited for.
Here's an abstract for you. What if the best basketball player in the world, never played basketball. For instance, Michael Jordan had a great love for baseball. What if he had taken that direction and never picked up a basketball. Instead of being one of the best of all time in basketball, he would have had an average career at best, in baseball.
My best friends son was the point guard at Del Campo with Matt Barnes. I watched a lot their games. First off, to say that the coaching was lacking would be an understatement. Secondly, guess what position Barnes played. You guessed it! Center. I'm sure that playing center at Del Campo really helped him when he got to UCLA. My point is, that because of their size, players are often projected to play a position, that doesn't fit their talent level.
Kids aren't born with a stamp that says point guard or center on them. What a bummer it would be if you were stamped center and you only grew to be 5'11" tall. End of career me thinks. Unless you play in the pygmy league. Unless your lucky enough to go to a highschool thats one of the elite basketball factory's, your probably at the mercy of the local physical fitness teacher who also doubles as the basketball coach.
College is where you should start to become refined. But with so many players doing one and done, that refinement is shortchanged. So its possible that a player with the talent to be a great point guard, and happened to be 6'6" tall, never had a chance to really develop those skills. Because someone at the time thought he would certainly look good at center in highschool, and he certainly would look good at the shooting guard position in college. Sometimes size, especially in the early stages, can steer a player away from the position he's best suited for.
Here's an abstract for you. What if the best basketball player in the world, never played basketball. For instance, Michael Jordan had a great love for baseball. What if he had taken that direction and never picked up a basketball. Instead of being one of the best of all time in basketball, he would have had an average career at best, in baseball.
This is an unfair characterization of my argument. Nowhere did I make a statement or argument to the affect that " their haven't been but a few tall point guards as proof that being tall eliminates one from being a good point guard". Straw man, plain and simple. The following is my long and rambling take on the subject.
A large percentage of taller guys have failed to become point guards at the NBA level. This is a fact. I think it a worthy question to consider why. Your anecdote provides one potential reason (coaching, conditioning, etc.). Perhaps on average there are differences in the lateral quickness between bigger and smaller guys that leads the former to struggle to say in front of the latter. Maybe the guys who succeed have a higher level of athleticism to compensate (young Hardaway). Again, on average.
Having a higher dribble could make taller guys more susceptible to getting stripped via pressure defense and thus they may struggle advancing the ball up the floor or initiating the fast break. Maybe bigger points need especially brilliant handles to compensate (Magic). To speculate further, perhaps there are guys who struggle with their jumpers, but are dynamic with the ball in their hands, (Evans, Livingston) so coaches use them in such a way that maximizes their chances to win in the short term, but at the cost of their long term development --such as developing their ability to distribute. Or maybe passing is innate and can't truly be taught, so the thought experiment is irrelevant.
It could be that it is simply uncommon for a bigger guard to have all the necessary tools and skills to work as an NBA point guard. Again, not a black and white statement, but just an observation (however flawed) about reality. How many of these guys succeed in making the transition? How many fail? Why do they fail? I am not making an absolutist statement; however, should history be ignored simply because there are exceptions to a rule? Or should history be used as a guide--not as if it were dogma predicting what comes next, but simply as an valuable reference. I think we ignore past experience at our own peril.
Of questionable relevance to this conversation, here is a very long article on the point guards of this draft. I found it interesting at least.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/06/18/point.guards/index.html
A large percentage of taller guys have failed to become point guards at the NBA level. This is a fact. I think it a worthy question to consider why. Your anecdote provides one potential reason (coaching, conditioning, etc.). Perhaps on average there are differences in the lateral quickness between bigger and smaller guys that leads the former to struggle to say in front of the latter. Maybe the guys who succeed have a higher level of athleticism to compensate (young Hardaway). Again, on average.
Having a higher dribble could make taller guys more susceptible to getting stripped via pressure defense and thus they may struggle advancing the ball up the floor or initiating the fast break. Maybe bigger points need especially brilliant handles to compensate (Magic). To speculate further, perhaps there are guys who struggle with their jumpers, but are dynamic with the ball in their hands, (Evans, Livingston) so coaches use them in such a way that maximizes their chances to win in the short term, but at the cost of their long term development --such as developing their ability to distribute. Or maybe passing is innate and can't truly be taught, so the thought experiment is irrelevant.
It could be that it is simply uncommon for a bigger guard to have all the necessary tools and skills to work as an NBA point guard. Again, not a black and white statement, but just an observation (however flawed) about reality. How many of these guys succeed in making the transition? How many fail? Why do they fail? I am not making an absolutist statement; however, should history be ignored simply because there are exceptions to a rule? Or should history be used as a guide--not as if it were dogma predicting what comes next, but simply as an valuable reference. I think we ignore past experience at our own peril.
Of questionable relevance to this conversation, here is a very long article on the point guards of this draft. I found it interesting at least.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/david_aldridge/06/18/point.guards/index.html
Last edited:
We have seen big PG's succeed and I think all it takes is common sense to tell what a player needs athletically and skills-wise to succeed at the PG position offensively, height itself doesn't get in the way of being a PG. Maybe a lack of athleticism or ball handling gets in the way, but as we've seen with players like Penny that you can be tall and still have the skills and athleticism necessary to succeed in that role. Look at LeBron, Pippen, Kobe, and McGrady; these are all guys 6'6-6'9 and practically played/play the PG position for their teams, they're the primary ball handlers and have to create off the dribble. If they're not true PG's, it has more to do with their mentality and/or offensive scheme rather than lack of ball handling or athleticism. So there is no need to bring up whether a player is too tall to play PG unless you thought the physical rigors would be too much for their frame, other than that you can just judge the individual categories based on their own merit.
I do take your point about not dismissing a player simply based on height. It appears I am failing to get my ideas across clearly. I do not dismiss players based on their height. I'm not trying to say "look, here is the cut off--if you're over 6'5 and consider yourself a point guard, then get out of the gym! " What I am trying to say is look at which guys have succeeded and which have not. Why? Do lottery selected big points wash out more often than their smaller contemporaries? I haven't done a detailed statistical analysis, so I certainly don't know for sure, but it does seem that way. There could be any number of reasons; one of which might be teams becoming infatuated with the size and handle (or other positive qualities) of a guy, and therefore becoming blinded to other holes in his game.
The point that if a bigger guard has the vision, athleticism, and skills necessary to play point guard, then they will be good, is tautological. Of course I agree with that. I just think the combination of skills that make a player a point guard become progressively less common as players get taller.
As for the bolded-- I think you are moving the goal posts here. Kobe, Lebron, or McGrady may be primary ball handlers, but that does not mean they are point guards IMO. I think to name them as such is to dilute the term 'point guard'. Take Hedo for example, he is a primary ball-handler for Orlando, but I think the term 'point forward' is more accurate. I suppose any definition is in a sense (if not completely) arbitrary; however, I just don't think the players you mention fulfill the core-requirements to be labeled point guards as I understand the term. This is all semantics, but whatever.
Let's hypothetically imagine a scenario where we draft Tyreke Evans. Say after 3-4 months he finds himself struggling with the burden of taking the ball up the floor, calling the plays, and defending the opposing teams point guard. Now, say we bring in a Jameer Nelson or Mo Williams to relieve some of the ball handling, defensive, and game management pressure . Evans blossoms-- he is still often the primary ball handler in the half court and becomes a 24-5-5 guy. He becomes an elite player. He has the ball in clutch situations and is a stud. Would he then a point guard? The same as if he had stayed at his previous position and flourished (or failed) as a distributor and a leader? By your definition perhaps, but not by mine.
The point that if a bigger guard has the vision, athleticism, and skills necessary to play point guard, then they will be good, is tautological. Of course I agree with that. I just think the combination of skills that make a player a point guard become progressively less common as players get taller.
As for the bolded-- I think you are moving the goal posts here. Kobe, Lebron, or McGrady may be primary ball handlers, but that does not mean they are point guards IMO. I think to name them as such is to dilute the term 'point guard'. Take Hedo for example, he is a primary ball-handler for Orlando, but I think the term 'point forward' is more accurate. I suppose any definition is in a sense (if not completely) arbitrary; however, I just don't think the players you mention fulfill the core-requirements to be labeled point guards as I understand the term. This is all semantics, but whatever.
Let's hypothetically imagine a scenario where we draft Tyreke Evans. Say after 3-4 months he finds himself struggling with the burden of taking the ball up the floor, calling the plays, and defending the opposing teams point guard. Now, say we bring in a Jameer Nelson or Mo Williams to relieve some of the ball handling, defensive, and game management pressure . Evans blossoms-- he is still often the primary ball handler in the half court and becomes a 24-5-5 guy. He becomes an elite player. He has the ball in clutch situations and is a stud. Would he then a point guard? The same as if he had stayed at his previous position and flourished (or failed) as a distributor and a leader? By your definition perhaps, but not by mine.
Last edited:
There have been many tall guards who once was thought to be able to play the point. In my lifetime, the list of stellar tall PG who were eventually moved to other positions includes Jalen Rose, Penny Hardaway, Steve Smith, Joe Johnson, Larry Hughes, John Salmons, and last but not least, Lebron James. Other tall players who weren't PG but played PG with success but still moved back to their original positions include Mike Miller, Mike Dunleavy, and Stephen Jackson. I don't know the exact reasons for their short tenure at the point, all I know is some coaches tried them at PGs and then switched course.
So if Tyreke Evans is to be a PG, he must possess qualities that all of the aforementioned players lack. Qualities that enable him to be a PG. I don't know if he can or not. Perhaps as ElRey wrote, Evans' ability to get by smaller guards is the key.
If I have to make a prediction, I'd say Evans' future is at the two. I just think he is too much of a natural scorer to become a facilitator.
But if Evans can be a PG who makes his teammates better, control the tempo and facilitate the offense, then you have to draft him because we're talking about the next Billups. I don't think he'll be that player but I can see why some would think that. On the other hand, if Evans is just another shoot-first combo guard closer in spirit to Steven Francis then he'll be a bad fit on this team. I lean toward the later.
So if Tyreke Evans is to be a PG, he must possess qualities that all of the aforementioned players lack. Qualities that enable him to be a PG. I don't know if he can or not. Perhaps as ElRey wrote, Evans' ability to get by smaller guards is the key.
If I have to make a prediction, I'd say Evans' future is at the two. I just think he is too much of a natural scorer to become a facilitator.
But if Evans can be a PG who makes his teammates better, control the tempo and facilitate the offense, then you have to draft him because we're talking about the next Billups. I don't think he'll be that player but I can see why some would think that. On the other hand, if Evans is just another shoot-first combo guard closer in spirit to Steven Francis then he'll be a bad fit on this team. I lean toward the later.
Last edited:
You didn't understand my point about those players. My point was that they have the athleticism and the skills to physically do the same thing a PG does, now the roles they play are not exactly PG's, but that has to do with the mental aspect of the game, not the physical aspect. We're discussing how height (which has to do with the physical, not mental) relates to ability to project as a PG in the NBA offensively. As far as athleticism, ball handling, and ability to break guys off the dribble and get into the lane, they're all physically capable of doing that; their height doesn't prevent them from doing that, it helps them actually. Mentally is a different thing altogether though.
I think we're in more agreement than it appears, it is tautological but you're not coming to the same conclusion as I am in light of this agreement and that's why I keep saying it. I think that the bolded part is not a particularly relevant observation in projecting PG's to the NBA. It's not as if we're blindly picking players just based on height, we're able to see what they're physically capable of. So the rarity of tall PG's is really irrelevant if we can see he physically has what it takes to be a PG. The odds are relevant to simply picking out a random 6'6 player without looking at his game and predicting whether he can be a PG, not when actually looking at an individual player and seeing what he's physically capable of.
(this next part is not necessarily directed at you since I'm sure you already know and agree with most of this)
Now you won't find as many tall PG's is because of several reasons. PG skills are the hardest to develop in all of basketball, they take the most time to develop and rely more on innate mental accumen (seeing plays formulate and making quick decisions) and physical attributes (speed, quickness, body control, footwork, vision) than any other role in basketball. So it stands to reason that the taller the player, the harder it is to find this combination of qualities because A.) Taller players are more rare strictly from a population standpoint, so it stands to reason that you'll find less of the taller players with the more harder to develop traits. It's similar to baseball where there are a lot more hard throwing right handers than left handers, not because of any physical defficiency with lefties, but simply because throwing hard is a rarer attribute to come by and there are a lower ratio of left handers in the general population than right handers. B.) Generally, the bigger you are, the less athletic you're likely to be. Also, like it has been pointed out already that being higher from the ground makes it harder to keep your dribble fast and lower to the ground, so that's a disadvantage but as we've seen with the examples, it doesn't preclude it from being physically possible or work-aroundable with other attributes. So since we've shown that being tall doesn't preclude the athleticism or physical skills necessary to be a PG, we don't need to say that there is a height limit to projecting PG's offensively because that's not necessarily what directly holds them back, it may be the route cause, but ultimately it will be athleticism, ball handling, passing, mental accumen, etc. C.) Generally, the bigger you are, the more likely it is at a younger age you will be taught "bigger" skills out of need for most junior high and high school teams. Now there are always exceptions to this for the lucky ones who found mentors who taught them the fundamental guard skills before anything else, and/or just naturally could do it well. Another situation is that a player grew up being PG height and learned PG skills, but had a late growth spurt and was able to retain those skills in their new body.
My bottom line is that since we've shown that height doesn't preclude physical ability to play the PG, height isn't really a deterrent in projecting a PG to the NBA, not directly at least. It's athleticism, mentality, ball handling, passing, etc. It's just that height tends to lead to less athleticism and ball handling compared to shorter players in the general population, but if you can see with your own eyes that they have the athleticism and the ball handling despite the odds and the trends, then being tall is largely irrelevant as a deterrent. Basically I'm saying just apply Occam's Razor here and take out the unnecessary factor.
Height actually can make up for other defficiencies like athleticism or shooting ability. It gives them better vision of the court, it gives them greater length (typically), greater leverage, and that can all lead to being more versatile as far as utilizing "bigger" skills like rebounding and posting up.
The only problem I see with height in (offensively) projecting a PG prospect going to the NBA is whether their frames will be able to withstand the amount of physical toll it takes to be a primary ball handler and chase around PG's (although that isn't absolutely necessarily, re: Magic Johnson). As we saw with Penny and Livingston, they were incredibly lanky and it led to knee injuries. However that doesn't change the fact that when they were healthy, they were physically capable of playing the PG position. It also doesn't change the fact that so many big players with guard skills and athleticism have been physically capable of handling the primary ball handler/creator roles without a higher propensity for injury. That also applies to defense as well, even if you're a tall PG and have the athleticism to guard smaller PG's, the running around on offense may be too much of a physical toll to keep your energy up defensively. Example: back in 2000 Kobe played less of a ball handling/facilitator role than he does now with the Lakers (more off-ball play back then), and he was able to very effectively guard Damon Stoudamire who is about 7-8 inches shorter than him.
I think we're in more agreement than it appears, it is tautological but you're not coming to the same conclusion as I am in light of this agreement and that's why I keep saying it. I think that the bolded part is not a particularly relevant observation in projecting PG's to the NBA. It's not as if we're blindly picking players just based on height, we're able to see what they're physically capable of. So the rarity of tall PG's is really irrelevant if we can see he physically has what it takes to be a PG. The odds are relevant to simply picking out a random 6'6 player without looking at his game and predicting whether he can be a PG, not when actually looking at an individual player and seeing what he's physically capable of.
(this next part is not necessarily directed at you since I'm sure you already know and agree with most of this)
Now you won't find as many tall PG's is because of several reasons. PG skills are the hardest to develop in all of basketball, they take the most time to develop and rely more on innate mental accumen (seeing plays formulate and making quick decisions) and physical attributes (speed, quickness, body control, footwork, vision) than any other role in basketball. So it stands to reason that the taller the player, the harder it is to find this combination of qualities because A.) Taller players are more rare strictly from a population standpoint, so it stands to reason that you'll find less of the taller players with the more harder to develop traits. It's similar to baseball where there are a lot more hard throwing right handers than left handers, not because of any physical defficiency with lefties, but simply because throwing hard is a rarer attribute to come by and there are a lower ratio of left handers in the general population than right handers. B.) Generally, the bigger you are, the less athletic you're likely to be. Also, like it has been pointed out already that being higher from the ground makes it harder to keep your dribble fast and lower to the ground, so that's a disadvantage but as we've seen with the examples, it doesn't preclude it from being physically possible or work-aroundable with other attributes. So since we've shown that being tall doesn't preclude the athleticism or physical skills necessary to be a PG, we don't need to say that there is a height limit to projecting PG's offensively because that's not necessarily what directly holds them back, it may be the route cause, but ultimately it will be athleticism, ball handling, passing, mental accumen, etc. C.) Generally, the bigger you are, the more likely it is at a younger age you will be taught "bigger" skills out of need for most junior high and high school teams. Now there are always exceptions to this for the lucky ones who found mentors who taught them the fundamental guard skills before anything else, and/or just naturally could do it well. Another situation is that a player grew up being PG height and learned PG skills, but had a late growth spurt and was able to retain those skills in their new body.
My bottom line is that since we've shown that height doesn't preclude physical ability to play the PG, height isn't really a deterrent in projecting a PG to the NBA, not directly at least. It's athleticism, mentality, ball handling, passing, etc. It's just that height tends to lead to less athleticism and ball handling compared to shorter players in the general population, but if you can see with your own eyes that they have the athleticism and the ball handling despite the odds and the trends, then being tall is largely irrelevant as a deterrent. Basically I'm saying just apply Occam's Razor here and take out the unnecessary factor.
Height actually can make up for other defficiencies like athleticism or shooting ability. It gives them better vision of the court, it gives them greater length (typically), greater leverage, and that can all lead to being more versatile as far as utilizing "bigger" skills like rebounding and posting up.
The only problem I see with height in (offensively) projecting a PG prospect going to the NBA is whether their frames will be able to withstand the amount of physical toll it takes to be a primary ball handler and chase around PG's (although that isn't absolutely necessarily, re: Magic Johnson). As we saw with Penny and Livingston, they were incredibly lanky and it led to knee injuries. However that doesn't change the fact that when they were healthy, they were physically capable of playing the PG position. It also doesn't change the fact that so many big players with guard skills and athleticism have been physically capable of handling the primary ball handler/creator roles without a higher propensity for injury. That also applies to defense as well, even if you're a tall PG and have the athleticism to guard smaller PG's, the running around on offense may be too much of a physical toll to keep your energy up defensively. Example: back in 2000 Kobe played less of a ball handling/facilitator role than he does now with the Lakers (more off-ball play back then), and he was able to very effectively guard Damon Stoudamire who is about 7-8 inches shorter than him.
Last edited:
OK. I believe I understand what you're saying, and I don't really disagree. I think plenty of fans and even GM's do however (regarding talent evaluation). I think in 3 days you will once again see people excitedly talking about putting square pegs into round holes. Size has a way of overwhelming reason.
To bajaden: My bad--I honestly thought your post was directed at me. I'll try to be a little less self-absorbed in the future.
To Kingster: If I misrepresented what you are saying, I apologize.
To bajaden: My bad--I honestly thought your post was directed at me. I'll try to be a little less self-absorbed in the future.
To Kingster: If I misrepresented what you are saying, I apologize.
OK. I believe I understand what you're saying, and I don't really disagree. I think plenty of fans and even GM's do however (regarding talent evaluation). I think in 3 days you will once again see people excitedly talking about putting square pegs into round holes. Size has a way of overwhelming reason.
To bajaden: My bad--I honestly thought your post was directed at me. I'll try to be a little less self-absorbed in the future.
To Kingster: If I misrepresented what you are saying, I apologize.
To bajaden: My bad--I honestly thought your post was directed at me. I'll try to be a little less self-absorbed in the future.
To Kingster: If I misrepresented what you are saying, I apologize.
It's just interesting that the tall PGs fail arguement is being bandied about.
Granted I know that comparing Evans and Rubio in anything but height is pretty much apples and oranges. But still.
That being said....I hope that if we draft Evans he learns to dunk. He finishes like a softy. His length could get that weak stuff by in the NCAA but he's going to get swatted like mad in the NBA if he keeps doing that weak one handed lay in stuff (in traffic).
I'm intrigued by his defensive potential more then offense. Lengthy dude, good athleticism. I want some blocks and steals from our SG!
Granted I know that comparing Evans and Rubio in anything but height is pretty much apples and oranges. But still.
That being said....I hope that if we draft Evans he learns to dunk. He finishes like a softy. His length could get that weak stuff by in the NCAA but he's going to get swatted like mad in the NBA if he keeps doing that weak one handed lay in stuff (in traffic).
I'm intrigued by his defensive potential more then offense. Lengthy dude, good athleticism. I want some blocks and steals from our SG!
Has anyone brought up that Rubio and Evans are the same height yet?
All I'm saying is that if Evans looks like "a man among boys" when playing in stilettoes, then he's my pick!