Ed Burmila
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Posts
- 2,364
- Reaction score
- 1
Totally OT, but here's a gem about the upcoming NBA draft. A prospect who Chad Ford (the basketball Mel Kiper) says could go Top 5.
The player is DeAndre Jordan of Texas A&M. He is 7', 255. He averaged 8 points and 6 rebounds. Here is the scouting report:
Positives: Big-time athlete. Great body. Very long. Explosive leaper. Excellent rebounder and shot-blocker. Great hands. Strong finisher around the basket. Runs the floor well. Very quick for a big guy. Developing hook shot in the paint.
Negatives: Scouts wonder about his motor. Doesn't always play hard. Disappears for stretches. Still fairly raw offensively. Gets most of points off dunks. No face-the-basket game. Needs to add core strength to hold his position better in the paint. Horrific free-throw shooter. Poor passer. Collects an unusually low amount of steals. Poor production in the second half of the season.
So let's review: on the plus side, he's big and tall. On the downside, he's lazy, has no offensive skills whatsoever except to throw down dunks over smaller players, he's weak, he's a "horrific" shooter, he can't pass, he doesn't play defense hard, and he didn't produce for half of his only college season (as his pitiful stats show).
But on the plus side, he's big and tall! And look at those long arms! Look at how high he jumps!
This is what gets GMs fired. They roll the dice on these "potential" guys only to find out...gasp...the guy can't actually play basketball. Which is, you know, pretty important. And of course we see the same thing all the time in the NFL, with scouts and GMs finding flaws in ultra-productive college players while making top 10 picks out of "projects" and Combine all-stars who didn't do squat on the field.
And they never learn. Same thing, different names, year after year.
(PS, the title is just a joke. The draft is fun.)
The player is DeAndre Jordan of Texas A&M. He is 7', 255. He averaged 8 points and 6 rebounds. Here is the scouting report:
Positives: Big-time athlete. Great body. Very long. Explosive leaper. Excellent rebounder and shot-blocker. Great hands. Strong finisher around the basket. Runs the floor well. Very quick for a big guy. Developing hook shot in the paint.
Negatives: Scouts wonder about his motor. Doesn't always play hard. Disappears for stretches. Still fairly raw offensively. Gets most of points off dunks. No face-the-basket game. Needs to add core strength to hold his position better in the paint. Horrific free-throw shooter. Poor passer. Collects an unusually low amount of steals. Poor production in the second half of the season.
So let's review: on the plus side, he's big and tall. On the downside, he's lazy, has no offensive skills whatsoever except to throw down dunks over smaller players, he's weak, he's a "horrific" shooter, he can't pass, he doesn't play defense hard, and he didn't produce for half of his only college season (as his pitiful stats show).
But on the plus side, he's big and tall! And look at those long arms! Look at how high he jumps!
This is what gets GMs fired. They roll the dice on these "potential" guys only to find out...gasp...the guy can't actually play basketball. Which is, you know, pretty important. And of course we see the same thing all the time in the NFL, with scouts and GMs finding flaws in ultra-productive college players while making top 10 picks out of "projects" and Combine all-stars who didn't do squat on the field.
And they never learn. Same thing, different names, year after year.
(PS, the title is just a joke. The draft is fun.)
