Antetokounmpo Highlights!! (Will grow to 7 feet)

Bucknado · Post #41 » by **Bucknado** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:03 pm

I say we tell him he has to grow to at least 7'2" or we are shipping him out. Light a little fire under neath the kid.

crkone · Post #42 » by **crkone** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:10 pm

With Giannis at PF, he could also take almost any PF in the league off the dribble. He would have to get pretty damn good at boxing out though, or play with a vacuum at C or SF.

EastSideBucksFan · Post #43 » by **EastSideBucksFan** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:15 pm

I'm curious to hear thoughts if Wiggins & Giannis could start together? Or Parker & Giannis?

Pretty frightening if they could.

MiltownHawkeye · Post #44 » by **MiltownHawkeye** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:22 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I don't think his advantage is nearly as big at the PF spot, due to the fact that it mitigates his height advantage, which hurts his vision in halfcourt sets, and it also would negate any post game he developed. It's not like his speed will be an issue at small forward. The thing that is so intriguing about him is the size at the position. You're taking a ton of that away if you move him to PF. And this is coming from someone who generally agrees that going small (i.e. you have to play Derrick Williams at PF not SF) is the right idea in today's NBA. We have needed a do it all wing forever, and Giannis has that potential.

We'll see what happens. I doubt we ever see him at PF as a full-time position though.

Well-said. It's not that Giannis couldn't play the 4, but making that his primary position is a huge waste. This is a guy that's capable of playing shooting guard.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #45 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:27 pm

I think you treat Giannis like LeBron, you don't necessarily designate him a single position. You just put players around him that complement his abilities. LeBron is a SF, but plays PG-PF through out the game, depending on match ups and team needs.

I see no reason why Wiggins/Giannis or Parker/Giannis couldn't work. In fact I hope one of the two comes to fruition because I think we'd have one of the best young cores in the league.

emunney · Post #46 » by **emunney** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:28 pm

EastSideBucksFan wrote:I'm curious to hear thoughts if Wiggins & Giannis could start together? Or Parker & Giannis?

Pretty frightening if they could.

I can't think of any reason why either one couldn't work.

Newz · Post #47 » by **Newz** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:30 pm

emunney wrote:
EastSideBucksFan wrote:I'm curious to hear thoughts if Wiggins & Giannis could start together? Or Parker & Giannis?

Pretty frightening if they could.

I can't think of any reason why either one couldn't work.

In today's NBA positions seem to be more fluid than ever. Starting Wiggins at the 2 would be fine. Starting Giannis/Parker at the 3/4 also seems like it'd be fine... might need a bigger C to make it work out in the long run.

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #48 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:33 pm

Can you guys imagine a lineup of PG/Giannis/Parker/Henson/Sanders in 2-3 years? That could be one of the most exciting teams in the history of the NBA, assuming we could find a good PG to run with that group.

crkone · Post #49 » by **crkone** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:36 pm

PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:Can you guys imagine a lineup of PG/Giannis/Parker/Henson/Sanders in 2-3 years? That could be one of the most exciting teams in the history of the NBA, assuming we could find a good PG to run with that group.

ReddWing · Post #50 » by **ReddWing** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:49 pm

Don't worry. HerBone will sign Luke to a long deal. You all remember 2010 right?

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #51 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 8:56 pm

crkone wrote:
PkrsBcksGphsMqt wrote:Can you guys imagine a lineup of PG/Giannis/Parker/Henson/Sanders in 2-3 years? That could be one of the most exciting teams in the history of the NBA, assuming we could find a good PG to run with that group.

Fine with me if it works out!

6'4, 7'0, 6'9, 6'11, 6'11 would be a hell of a starting line up. And depending on Parker's wingspan, 4 of the 5 could have 7 foot wingspans.

CJTURT · Post #52 » by **CJTURT** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 9:36 pm

I wonder how good he would be if he was in college this year. Maybe to 5 pick?

PkrsBcksGphsMqt · Post #53 » by **PkrsBcksGphsMqt** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:03 pm

CJTURT wrote:I wonder how good he would be if he was in college this year. Maybe to 5 pick?

I think there is no question. Put him on ESPN and CBS all season going up against much inferior athletes/players and he'd pick up some major hype. He is such a unique prospect that you'd have to consider him top 5, especially now that doctors are expecting him to reach 7 feet.

jakecronus8 · Post #54 » by **jakecronus8** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:13 pm

I kinda hope he stops growing. His frame wouldn't be good for 7 feet. I can't see him being Garnett, who basically was a 3 his first 5-7 years in the league.

Baddy Chuck · Post #55 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:18 pm

Odom handled a 6'10-6'11 frame pretty well until he gave up candy for crack.

Bucksfan28 · Post #56 » by **Bucksfan28** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:23 pm

CJTURT wrote:I wonder how good he would be if he was in college this year. Maybe to 5 pick?

That's a pretty safe assumption. A lot of the talk around draft time was how had he played a year at a prestigious basketball school he'd be a top 5 lock.

Wooderson · Post #57 » by **Wooderson** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:25 pm

Not worried about Giannis's weight/frame. Anthony Davis went through a huge growth spurt during high school and was rail thin until his rookie year where he added some weight. Give GA another year including the offseason with NBA level training program and he'll be good to go.

H2tObes · Post #58 » by **H2tObes** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 10:31 pm

Pretty much the only reason Giannis went in the middle of the first instead of the top of the lottery is because GM's had no idea how he'd look in the NBA. The competition he was facing wasn't even on the level of D1 college ball you could argue.

If GM's got to see him play college ball over here in the States he would have to intrigue 1 gm enough to pick him in the top 5, no question. It's hard to imagine what kind of numbers he would've put up in College....but if I had to guess it would be something like 15/5/4 with excellent defense

Also, I don't see downside to Giannis growing. Him being able to get his shot off easier is something that could really help him be elite. It's not like an extra inch is going to make him lose that dribbling and passing ability.

MiltownHawkeye · Post #59 » by **MiltownHawkeye** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 11:31 pm

H2tObes wrote:Pretty much the only reason Giannis went in the middle of the first instead of the top of the lottery is because GM's had no idea how he'd look in the NBA. The competition he was facing wasn't even on the level of D1 college ball you could argue.

If GM's got to see him play college ball over here in the States he would have to intrigue 1 gm enough to pick him in the top 5, no question. It's hard to imagine what kind of numbers he would've put up in College....but if I had to guess it would be something like 15/5/4 with excellent defense

Also, I don't see downside to Giannis growing. Him being able to get his shot off easier is something that could really help him be elite. It's not like an extra inch is going to make him lose that dribbling and passing ability.

It would help him get stripped by smaller players just a little bit easier.

Willie Colon · Post #60 » by **Willie Colon** » Tue Dec 3, 2013 11:46 pm

LUKE23 wrote:If we can somehow build a coherent offense with a Giannis/Henson/Sanders frontcourt, we'd have a silly team. Just on length alone that trio would cause all kinds of problems.

We should be starting all three right now. It's beyond obvious that we're not going anywhere this year, so why not let your youth gain valuable experience and grow together?

I can't help but get the feeling that one or two or them will be traded in the next few years. Hell, maybe even this year. After the Harris fiasco, we can never be too sure.