Or Francisco Elson?calumnus said:OaktownBear said:I think it is unfair to project. Why? Nnamdi Asomugha.BearGreg said:
And how do you project their future potential?
How many of you saw an All Pro corner on the 2001 Cal football team?
Do I see a Nnamdi Asomugha on this team? No. But I didn't see one then either.
Or as a basketball example, that Sean Marks would have such a lengthy NBA career?
A skinny, really long freshman is unlikely to be moving with a ton of grace. Guys like that need to grow into their length just to be able to move up and down the court. The same guy as an upperclassman, with proper conditioning and strength training, may well move very differently. I could see Vanover becoming an impact player. I also could see it never quite materializing, but he has shooting touch and decent instincts that with a bit more body control could make him a force.bearister said:ducky23 said:
If vanover puts on some some serious muscle/weight and learns how to protect the rim, he could be a POY candidate by his senior year.
Height and shooting ability is a rare combination.
You may well be right but I never see him moving with the grace of a Moses Brown.
GMP said:I remember being miffed at talk that Roy might beat out Powe for POY, as Powe was leading the conference in points and rebounds. But I hadn't seen Roy play. Toward the end of the year, Cal went up to Seattle for a big game, as both teams were neck and neck in the standings (I just checked and we were 11-4 in conference, tied with UCLA for first, and one game up on UW before the game against UW). And then the game started and it was clear Roy was on another level - playing chess while everyone else was playing checkers. It's a bummer he had so many injuries, he would have been a great player.Yogi Bear said:I think that was Ridnour's year. Brandon Roy is the one that beat out Powe.Big C said:Shipp might've been runner-up for conference POY, his senior year (I forget who won).bearister said:
I will be very disappointed in my abilities as an amateur talent evaluator if Matt Bradley's career stats at Cal do not surpass those of Joe Shipp. I was a huge Shipp fan.
Joe averaged: 13 PPG; 4 RB and 1.5 AST
Bradley so far: 10.6 PPG; 3.4 RB and 2.1 AST
Matt Bradley will be an elite player for Cal.
Powe would have been a better player as well, without the injuries.
oskidunker said:
Higher ceiling to do what?
bluesaxe said:A skinny, really long freshman is unlikely to be moving with a ton of grace..bearister said:ducky23 said:
If vanover puts on some some serious muscle/weight and learns how to protect the rim, he could be a POY candidate by his senior year.
Height and shooting ability is a rare combination.
You may well be right but I never see him moving with the grace of a Moses Brown.
Well, if Bradley is 6-4, then JHD must be 6-6.BeachedBear said:
Other than defensive INTENSITY, I'm not going along with the JHD to Jorge comparisons. Much different players IMHO. To me, JHD reminds me more of Roger Moute a Bidias, but with more intensity. Both of them had weaknesses in their game, but were freakish athletes. I think JHD is much farther along as a freshman, than RMB, though.
JHD is listed as 6-5, 198 lbs. But he seems smaller on the court. Maybe its his body type. Anybody else sensing that?
LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
Big C said:Well, if Bradley is 6-4, then JHD must be 6-6.BeachedBear said:
Other than defensive INTENSITY, I'm not going along with the JHD to Jorge comparisons. Much different players IMHO. To me, JHD reminds me more of Roger Moute a Bidias, but with more intensity. Both of them had weaknesses in their game, but were freakish athletes. I think JHD is much farther along as a freshman, than RMB, though.
JHD is listed as 6-5, 198 lbs. But he seems smaller on the court. Maybe its his body type. Anybody else sensing that?
Wait, do you mean ACTUAL height?
Well, we agree on the "hard to quantify" aspect. I concede there is some psychological effect that factors in but, given a choice of: 1) a guy who will score in double digits, shoot fts at 70%+ and get 0-2 blocks per game and 2) a single digit scorer, 50% ft shooter who gets 3-5 blocks per game, I want #1.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
Too many unknowns for me to make a choice - how high single digits? how low double digits? how well does each defend the pick and roll? do they pass well out of the high or low post? does either of them struggle to stay on the floor because of fouls? etc.59bear said:Well, we agree on the "hard to quantify" aspect. I concede there is some psychological effect that factors in but, given a choice of: 1) a guy who will score in double digits, shoot fts at 70%+ and get 0-2 blocks per game and 2) a single digit scorer, 50% ft shooter who gets 3-5 blocks per game, I want #1.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
59bear said:Well, we agree on the "hard to quantify" aspect. I concede there is some psychological effect that factors in but, given a choice of: 1) a guy who will score in double digits, shoot fts at 70%+ and get 0-2 blocks per game and 2) a single digit scorer, 50% ft shooter who gets 3-5 blocks per game, I want #1.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice. You have to look at like 3 attributes of "athleticism" and ignore like 400 things he can't do as well and say "Gee if he ever learns to do those 400 things, he'll be better"Yogi Bear said:LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
you may have missed my sarcasm. I knew Jorge and you sir are no Jorge! But that said, Jorges scoring average almost tripled over 4 years. So his offensive game and scoring ability did improve markedly as he became smarter and more confident. .OaktownBear said:I keep seeing these comments about Jorge, and it just doesn't match my memory. Looking at the stats, he shot 45% as a frosh, 31% from 3. As a senior he shot 44%, 33% from 3. He did take more shots, which ups the difficulty, so that should be taken into account. But I don't remember him as having no offensive game. I remember him as being a freshman. He needed to polish his offensive game and offense wasn't his role. But he didn't have anything close to the shooting struggles that JHD has.cal83dls79 said:love the Jorge analysis. It was always fun to see these guys come into their own. Jerome Randall.HearstMining said:How would you compare JHD's development to Jorge Gutierrez? Jorge came in with decent athleticism, intense desire to play defense, and really no offensive skills to speak of. Each year, he improved. He became a smarter defensive player. His handle was never great, but it definitely improved. He gradually extended his shooting range, particularly his 4th year. You could sense that he focused on 1 or 2 areas each off-season and the results showed. That may or may not have been Montgomery's influence.HoopDreams said:
I have a lot of thoughts on each player, but the clear leaders on this team are Justice and McNeil. Bradley and Vanover have huge upside, although each have significant challenges (Vanover strength, and Bradley height). I also really like Kelly, and we have some solid role players also.
whether you agree or disagree with the above, it shouldn't be too big a surprise to most.
therefore I'd like to talk about a player where others might have a difference of opinion ... Juhwan Harris-Dyson.
If I have an imperfect basketball team (and there are no perfect teams in the pac12), then I want Juhwan on my team. Defense is usually under rated, and it takes more than just the physical/athletic to be a great defender. You also need the defensive IQ and the desire.
...
JHD is, of course, taller and I think more athletic. Playing in a zone defense somewhat obscures JHD's defensive abilities, but I am disappointed that his offense and ball skills have not improved more. Maybe developing a 8-10 ft shot that he could use flashing into the middle of the zone defense. That's what I hoped to see this year. As you say, he has the great mindset - maybe he just needs a plan to follow.
And then you would see complete fails..the PG from DLS to name one.
Yes... it's a very similar thing, and that supports my point.OaktownBear said:
Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice.
Bob Hayes was a great wide receiver. Ray Norton was not.OaktownBear said:Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice. You have to look at like 3 attributes of "athleticism" and ignore like 400 things he can't do as well and say "Gee if he ever learns to do those 400 things, he'll be better"Yogi Bear said:LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
This was the Moneyball lesson (and in no way limited to Moneyball). You can't have scouts that look at an athletic 18 year old and dream about how good he could be if he learns all the skills he needs perfectly and then compare him to a guy who actually has developed skills. For most guys there is a limit to how much more they can improve skills wise once you get out of high school.
Jorge is better than the large majority of guys with JHD's athletic profile. You'd be hard pressed to name guys who had JHD's athletic and skill profile at this age who ended up with a better career than Jorge. I'd bet the house on JHD not having Jorge's career. Yeah, if you want to say 1 in 10 million JHD's end up better than Jorge means he has a higher ceiling, okay. Scouting that way makes you wrong 9,999,999 times.
R90 said:Yes... it's a very similar thing, and that supports my point.OaktownBear said:
Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice.
If Usain Bolt had dedicated his life to being a wide receiver instead of running 100 and 200 meters, I expect he would have been better than Jerry Rice. He had much better size and speed. That's creates the higher ceiling.
Rice was an intense workaholic who reached the top of his potential to became an all-time great while not being the fastest or tallest receiver in the league. He went being from an unknown at Mississippi Vally State, to being a hall of fame receiver.
If Bolt had been born in the US, and had committed himself to football over the years as much as Rice, both mentally and physically, it's hard to imagine a defender being able to keep up with him, out-position, or out-reach him. However, Bolt had a great opportunity in sprinting which worked out very well for him.
Jorge had amazing drive to succeed, stemming largely from his status as an undocumented immigrant coming to America to pursue his basketball dream. If he failed at basketball, it would have been very bad for him and his family.
JHD will graduate from Cal with his degree and many opportunities outside basketball. He doesn't have the desperate need to commit himself the same way Jorge did. If JHD does somehow realize his full potential, his athletic gifts will take him further than Jorge's brief stays in the NBA.
It doesn't support your point. Being a wide receiver requires a whole bunch of skills. In saying you expect Bolt would have been better than Jerry Rice, you are assuming that only hard work goes into all the skills that Rice had. And since Bolt is faster and larger than Rice, had he worked as hard as Rice, he would have had those skills also. You are talking about the best receiver that ever played the game and saying that a guy who is big and fast would have been better. That is ridiculous.R90 said:Yes... it's a very similar thing, and that supports my point.OaktownBear said:
Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice.
If Usain Bolt had dedicated his life to being a wide receiver instead of running 100 and 200 meters, I expect he would have been better than Jerry Rice. He had much better size and speed. That's creates the higher ceiling.
Rice was an intense workaholic who reached the top of his potential to became an all-time great while not being the fastest or tallest receiver in the league. He went being from an unknown at Mississippi Vally State, to being a hall of fame receiver.
If Bolt had been born in the US, and had committed himself to football over the years as much as Rice, both mentally and physically, it's hard to imagine a defender being able to keep up with him, out-position, or out-reach him. However, Bolt had a great opportunity in sprinting which worked out very well for him.
Jorge had amazing drive to succeed, stemming largely from his status as an undocumented immigrant coming to America to pursue his basketball dream. If he failed at basketball, it would have been very bad for him and his family.
JHD will graduate from Cal with his degree and many opportunities outside basketball. He doesn't have the desperate need to commit himself the same way Jorge did. If JHD does somehow realize his full potential, his athletic gifts will take him further than Jorge's brief stays in the NBA.
R90 said:
...If Usain Bolt had dedicated his life to being a wide receiver instead of running 100 and 200 meters, I expect he would have been better than Jerry Rice. ..
Wilt might have had a chance in his youth with the poles they used in his day. He would have broken any fiberglass or similar pole of today.bearister said:R90 said:
...If Usain Bolt had dedicated his life to being a wide receiver instead of running 100 and 200 meters, I expect he would have been better than Jerry Rice. ..
The only concession you will get out of me on that one is: possible but not probable. All kinds of football players had more athleticism than Rice in the areas that Bolt is superior but not many of them became famous and none of them surpassed Jerry. Let's face facts, God painted a Rembrandt when he made Jerry.
A "what if" argument I do consider iron clad, however, is that if Wilt Chamberlain could have pole vaulted worth taffy, he would have been wearing the Olympic Gold for the Decathlon.
I would split the difference on dunks. The ability to put yourself in position to get an easy dunk is undervalued. Making a massive athletic show of it is overvalued. Fun to watch, but overvalued. Especially when it reduces the efficiency of the easy dunk you worked so hard to get in position to make. cough...Devon Hardin...cough.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
There you go. And our own Isaac Curtis not too shabby.cal83dls79 said:
Or Skeets Nehemiah. Willie Gault was pretty good.
Good point.OaktownBear said:I would split the difference on dunks. The ability to put yourself in position to get an easy dunk is undervalued. Making a massive athletic show of it is overvalued. Fun to watch, but overvalued. Especially when it reduces the efficiency of the easy dunk you worked so hard to get in position to make. cough...Devon Hardin...cough.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
Other Olympians who were successful NFL receivers: Bob Hayes, Earl McCulloughcal83dls79 said:
Or Skeets Nehemiah. Willie Gault was pretty good.
Valid points. I wasn't suggesting that scoring is the only criterion, just that I believe there is an unfortunate tendency to favor style over substance at times.GMP said:Too many unknowns for me to make a choice - how high single digits? how low double digits? how well does each defend the pick and roll? do they pass well out of the high or low post? does either of them struggle to stay on the floor because of fouls? etc.59bear said:Well, we agree on the "hard to quantify" aspect. I concede there is some psychological effect that factors in but, given a choice of: 1) a guy who will score in double digits, shoot fts at 70%+ and get 0-2 blocks per game and 2) a single digit scorer, 50% ft shooter who gets 3-5 blocks per game, I want #1.GMP said:59bear said:2 thoughts: 1) the ability to put the ball in the basket is, surprisingly, often undervalued; 2) dunks/blocked shots tend to be overvalued. If he stays healthy, Vanover will have a more productive career than either Okoroh or Lee.concordtom said:
Vanover vs Kingsley vs Marcus Lee
Compare and contrast.
Dunks are the most efficient shot in the game and are if anything underrated.
Agree that blocks are a bit overrated, but a player that blocks shots discouraged teams from entering the key and alters shots when they do, which is hard to quantify and thus underrated.
I'm overwhelmed by the sheer force of your argument.OaktownBear said:
That is ridiculous.
...Ridiculous
...Ridiculous
...Ridiculous.
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What makes you think...
What you are basically saying...
It also is a meaningless statement.
...is a very true and very pointless statement.
LOL. That's all I have to say to that.R90 said:Yes... it's a very similar thing, and that supports my point.OaktownBear said:
Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice.
If Usain Bolt had dedicated his life to being a wide receiver instead of running 100 and 200 meters, I expect he would have been better than Jerry Rice. He had much better size and speed. That's creates the higher ceiling.
Rice was an intense workaholic who reached the top of his potential to became an all-time great while not being the fastest or tallest receiver in the league. He went being from an unknown at Mississippi Vally State, to being a hall of fame receiver.
If Bolt had been born in the US, and had committed himself to football over the years as much as Rice, both mentally and physically, it's hard to imagine a defender being able to keep up with him, out-position, or out-reach him. However, Bolt had a great opportunity in sprinting which worked out very well for him.
Jorge had amazing drive to succeed, stemming largely from his status as an undocumented immigrant coming to America to pursue his basketball dream. If he failed at basketball, it would have been very bad for him and his family.
JHD will graduate from Cal with his degree and many opportunities outside basketball. He doesn't have the desperate need to commit himself the same way Jorge did. If JHD does somehow realize his full potential, his athletic gifts will take him further than Jorge's brief stays in the NBA.
Nor was Renaldo NehmiahSFCityBear said:Bob Hayes was a great wide receiver. Ray Norton was not.OaktownBear said:Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice. You have to look at like 3 attributes of "athleticism" and ignore like 400 things he can't do as well and say "Gee if he ever learns to do those 400 things, he'll be better"Yogi Bear said:LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
This was the Moneyball lesson (and in no way limited to Moneyball). You can't have scouts that look at an athletic 18 year old and dream about how good he could be if he learns all the skills he needs perfectly and then compare him to a guy who actually has developed skills. For most guys there is a limit to how much more they can improve skills wise once you get out of high school.
Jorge is better than the large majority of guys with JHD's athletic profile. You'd be hard pressed to name guys who had JHD's athletic and skill profile at this age who ended up with a better career than Jorge. I'd bet the house on JHD not having Jorge's career. Yeah, if you want to say 1 in 10 million JHD's end up better than Jorge means he has a higher ceiling, okay. Scouting that way makes you wrong 9,999,999 times.
of course he wasn't, who is arguing that he was? He was almost exhibit A of why that experiment was risky and seldom pursued since....but Walsh stuck to it maybe longer than he should have.UrsaMajor said:Nor was Renaldo NehmiahSFCityBear said:Bob Hayes was a great wide receiver. Ray Norton was not.OaktownBear said:Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice. You have to look at like 3 attributes of "athleticism" and ignore like 400 things he can't do as well and say "Gee if he ever learns to do those 400 things, he'll be better"Yogi Bear said:LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
This was the Moneyball lesson (and in no way limited to Moneyball). You can't have scouts that look at an athletic 18 year old and dream about how good he could be if he learns all the skills he needs perfectly and then compare him to a guy who actually has developed skills. For most guys there is a limit to how much more they can improve skills wise once you get out of high school.
Jorge is better than the large majority of guys with JHD's athletic profile. You'd be hard pressed to name guys who had JHD's athletic and skill profile at this age who ended up with a better career than Jorge. I'd bet the house on JHD not having Jorge's career. Yeah, if you want to say 1 in 10 million JHD's end up better than Jorge means he has a higher ceiling, okay. Scouting that way makes you wrong 9,999,999 times.
cal83dls79 said:of course he wasn't, who is arguing that he was? He was almost exhibit A of why that experiment was risky and seldom pursued since....but Walsh stuck to it maybe longer than he should have.UrsaMajor said:Nor was Renaldo NehmiahSFCityBear said:Bob Hayes was a great wide receiver. Ray Norton was not.OaktownBear said:Saying JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge is akin to saying Usain Bolt has a higher ceiling as a wide receiver than Jerry Rice. You have to look at like 3 attributes of "athleticism" and ignore like 400 things he can't do as well and say "Gee if he ever learns to do those 400 things, he'll be better"Yogi Bear said:LOL. People need to stop conflating athleticism with ability.R90 said:
JHD has a higher ceiling than Jorge (as much as I like Jorge).
This was the Moneyball lesson (and in no way limited to Moneyball). You can't have scouts that look at an athletic 18 year old and dream about how good he could be if he learns all the skills he needs perfectly and then compare him to a guy who actually has developed skills. For most guys there is a limit to how much more they can improve skills wise once you get out of high school.
Jorge is better than the large majority of guys with JHD's athletic profile. You'd be hard pressed to name guys who had JHD's athletic and skill profile at this age who ended up with a better career than Jorge. I'd bet the house on JHD not having Jorge's career. Yeah, if you want to say 1 in 10 million JHD's end up better than Jorge means he has a higher ceiling, okay. Scouting that way makes you wrong 9,999,999 times.
