Great insider article on the PGs

[CBAreject]

To say that height is not required in a great player is correct.

To say that 'height has nothing to do with success' is foolish and belies a misunderstanding of probability and statistics.

If height truly had 'nothing to do with' a player's impact in the NBA, the average player would be 5'10", or the average height of the population. Obviously, the average NBA player is much taller than this (6'7"), showing that height is an important requirement in an NBA player.

Now, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you're talking about PG's. Well, you still have statistics against you as the average PG is 6'2" or so. Furthermore, very, very few of them are below 6'. Boykins, Stoudamire, um, um, um.....you see?

There are plenty of talented 5'7" guys around the world. However, there's a reason that they are virtually nonexistant in the NBA.

[Traceman]

When in doubt, I think it is usually best to take the big guy. That being said, the upcoming NCAA tourney always seems to make a player's stock go up or down. Carmelo was always considered to be a solid player but there were questions until he led Syracuse to the NCAA Championship. If Bogut, Paul or Williams has a huge tourney, one of them could vault to the top of the draft boards.

[CBAreject]

Don't sell him short. He knows exactly what point you were trying to make.

His point is, your examples of 'short' PG's on championship teams consisted of guys who weren't impact players on their teams.

HERE'S THE POINT you should be getting. NOBODY is saying Chris Paul can't be as good as Derek Fischer. Would you draft Fischer #1??? I don't think so. The point is, we don't know of many players who are 5'10" and are superstars worthy of a #1 draft choice. You have yet to list one. Sure, KJ was good. So was Price. Those guys were still 6', though. Also, they weren't dominant like Nash or Stockton or Kidd. PG's tend to be shorter, but they're usually at least 6'1". There just aren't many 5'10" guys tearing up the league. Paul may be the first, but do we want to bet on it, given that it hasn't really been done before?

I'm actually one of Paul's fans, but I don't think your point is very strong.

[jezmund]

Why do people say that they don't care between the #1 and the #3 just b/c there isn't a consensus #1 pick. I don't know about you but I'd rather have a choice in case there is one come draft time. So do I want to choose whomever I want, or do I want to be limited..hmmm? I guarantee BK is smart enough to care. I think there is someone he wants at #1. I'll trust his judgement when it comes to the NBA Draft over just about anyone's.

I use to be, and still am for that matter, all about Andrew Bogut. People say Big Z would be his ceiling but he is shorter, I disagree with. He has more fire in his belly and is more mobile than Big Z. I didn't say extremely mobile, just more mobile than Big Z. I've seen Bogut take the ball to the rim a whole lot harder than I've ever seen Zydrunas take it. He is also a whole lot tougher when it comes to fighting for rebounds. Hopefully if we got him, he could develop Big Z's crafty offensive skills and smooth mid-range shot.

On the Chris Paul note, I use to be the one against picking him up b/c (being a GT fan) I've seen him get abused time and time again by Jarrett Jack. (Someone many of you think is garbage as far as NBA potential) I am starting to warm up to him, though. I think he could be better than Mike Bibby. But not quite a Steve Nash type. He's definitely taller than Bibby but lacks in the strength department. He's supposedly a good defensive player but how come he is the PG of maybe one of the worst defensive teams in the ACC? Quite a few ACC PG's, not just Jack, took him to school quite a few times. That being said, if Bogut is really just a stiff playing bad competition and Jack won't last to #17, I wouldn't be disappointed with Paul. If this were the case, I'd love to see someone like Shelden Williams fall to #17. The question would be with Paul, what FA big man is worthy of a big contract? Eddy Curry? Tempting, but I'd have to pass. Stromile Swift? I'll let NO overpay for a guy who seems to just block shots and dunk. (We already have one of those) Samuel Dalembert? Well, he can't even beat out Marc Jackson for minutes. Some have mentioned on here that his attitude is in question. We don't need lazy players. That's why I love the Childress pick right now. Tyson Chandler? I like the fact that his team depends on him to be a defensive prescence down the stretch in close games but why doesn't he play much otherwise? I'm looking more for defense from our future center but I would like some offensive abilities and I'm not sure what Tyson brings there. Kwame Brown? Don't know. He does seem kind of uninterested when I've seen him. Tyson at least seems to give 100%. Hopefully Seattle resign Allen/Radmonovic to big money, Cleveland signs Big Z to big money, Milwaukee signs Redd to big money, Chicago signs Curry to big money, NO signs Swift to big money and we can have some bargaining power with Chandler. (Hopefully his health is good)

Chris Paul

Josh Childress

Josh Smith

Al Harrington

Tyson Chandler

2005-06 Starting Lineup?

On the Anthony Roberson note, I don't care for him. I remember reading somewhere that he had a very selfish attitude. There's a reason why Florida underachieves with multiple McDonald's All-Americans. I'll take Guillermo Diaz or Jarrett Jack all day over Roberson.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Don't sell him short. He knows exactly what point you were trying to make.

His point is, your examples of 'short' PG's on championship teams consisted of guys who weren't impact players on their teams.

HERE'S THE POINT you should be getting. NOBODY is saying Chris Paul can't be as good as Derek Fischer. Would you draft Fischer #1??? I don't think so. The point is, we don't know of many players who are 5'10" and are superstars worthy of a #1 draft choice. You have yet to list one. Sure, KJ was good. So was Price. Those guys were still 6', though. Also, they weren't dominant like Nash or Stockton or Kidd. PG's tend to be shorter, but they're usually at least 6'1". There just aren't many 5'10" guys tearing up the league. Paul may be the first, but do we want to bet on it, given that it hasn't really been done before?

I'm actually one of Paul's fans, but I don't think your point is very strong.

---

You are missing my original point as well. I only referenced guys like Fischer and AJ because some other poster said that you cannot win a point guard that is below average height. Obviously, those guys were along for the ride. Also, regardless of whether KJ, Bibby, Price et al were listed as 6', does not mean they are indeed six feet. Programs do lie.

My original point, however, was that people who use size as a reason that Chris Paul will not succeed at the NBA level is unfair. Yes size is important in the NBA, and if two players were equal talents you would always take the taller of the two, but the fact that a point guard is 5'10" to 6' is not that big of a liability and certaintly not a reason why he would not succeed. LAck of size is much more of a liability at other positions, particularly center and power forward, because size and strength are very important in post play.

Do I think Paul will be a superstar? I have no idea, I am just an average fan.

[emorystar]

Chris Paul plays terrible defense, and shares PG duties with Gray. I am a huge Paul skeptic, and not because of his size either. His defense is my #1 concern. If Paul had the ball in his hands as much as Jack and Felton do, I guarantee you he would have a near identical TO/Ast ratio.