Under*ized!

[moofs]

So having seen it in action yet again, what is it that makes "under*ized"1 bigs loathsome while under*ized, athletic smalls2 are perfectly fine, if not coveted?

And how is it that, even here, we seem to have only a passing notion of the term "standing reach"?

1. According to Rockets fans, under 6'10" listed height, in spite of the average PF height being about 6'8.5"-6'9".
2. Under 6'5". Dwyane Wade and Charles Barkley are pretty much just total freaks.

[rocketsballin]

i think anything under 6'9 is undersized, maybe 6'8.5 is ok, but depends on the player. i dont hate them, but we need a center who's tall and has size and muscle. even in nba2k, i RARELY play scola at center.

the only way i'm ok with a 6'9 guy at center is if he's a freak of freaks, like a prime ben wallace. those come by like a few times every 10 years, at the most? and even then he had sheed at pf who has size and length

would've been awesome to keep hayes tho. i mean, pau/hayes/nene is just omfg no way get outta here w/ ur dwight howard and...brandon bass? lmaoooo

edit - after years and years of dealing with undersized bigs, i think on the rockets board, the word "undersized" should be a bad word. if you have to say it, filter the word yourself - under*ized. if i had the right words this would've been a lot more funny

[jwise44]

i get standing reach is the most important but when our best bigs are luis scola and patty p both 6'9 and neither of which has ben wallace like standing reach we have a problem

and if this is about the sullinger talk...if he's 6'9 with a solid standing reach and that weight thats fine, but i'd still rather a risk pick with star potential over the SAFE pick

i just always think he looks smaller, but i may be wrong