You can keep your eye's closed if you want, but the truth is, Love played better than Arthur all year long in just as tough a conference. Yet everyone argued that he was too small and not athletic enough. So now he's measured and wa la, he taller than Arthur. He jumps higher than Arthur. His 3/4 court speed is faster than Arthur. His lateral movement drill is faster than Arthur. And yet, your still in denial. If his poor showing is because of not preparing properly, then thats a red flag, because Love worked his butt off and came in, in great shape. As I said before, as far as I'm concerned, case closed.....
Sheesh, some people will do anything to find an argument
I find it extremely amusing that you just went off on me when I didn't mention Love once in the post you quoted. And in the post I did mention Love, nowhere did I say Arthur is or will be a better player than Love. Are you choosing to see what you want to see in order to get a debate going?
If you could point out where I said Arthur played better than Love, that'd be great. Care to explain how I'm still in denial? Only thing I said is that Arthur has talent, and that the combine isn't a true reflection of his athleticism (it's not). He
does jump higher than Love, he
does run the floor better than Love. Right now, they're not debatable, I don't care what stats you put on front of me. A combine doesn't tell it all. Arthur clearly didn't prepare properly, which is not a good thing, it's a negative, as pointed out by Vlade4GM (I think).
You like Love better. Big deal. I like Love too, but not for this team. I'd be happy if we got him, but we wouldn't be going far with a frontcourt that plays no defense.
It's not true at all that it's not significant. The only instance I can think of in the NBA where someone had a bad combine showing who ended up being much more athletic in the NBA was Monta Ellis. On the flipside, a great combine showing elevated the stock (and justifiably) for guys like Jordan Farmar, David Lee and Rajon Rondo, putting them into the first round.
That double-whammy of size and athleticism should effectively kill Arthur's stock.
I disagree. The combine gives minimal insight as to how a player will perform in the NBA. I'm not discarding any poorshowings, or making light of any great ones, just pointing out that either extreme does not guarantee greatness or failure for said players. As far as I can remember, Rondo and Farmar were pretty much always projected as mid to late first rounders. Lee, I would put down to good drafting by Thomas. Horrible GM he was, but he has an eye for talent when it comes to the draft.
And by the way. You can list him at any height you want, but he's 6'8" in shoes. Of course Beasley is only 6'8 1/2 " in shoes, if thats any consolation.
Why would it be any consolation? I'm not pro-Arthur, anti-Love like you would like to believe.
Yet another childish remark.
Love is a better college player than Arthur too. It's just fact that Love at this point is better than Arthur..
In college Arthur had consistency, and motivational issues. A poor showing at the combine might have proven that he didn't put enough into it.
On the other hand look at Love. He has dropped 20lbs+, and about 5% body fat. He has been working out eve though he was guaranteed a lottery pick. Now that's the type of player that I want.. Although we wont get him
I pretty much agree with everything you just said. Yet people want me crucified for saying Arthur is talented? As if it has to be either/or. I like both players. Love is a better, smarter player, but he is more limited athletically and hasn't shown that he can play defense. That can be worked on, which is why he's out of reach. I find it funny that I got such a berating for making a simple comment only about Arthur, and people tried to make out that I'm anti-Love.
