The Dante Exum Thread

[Orlwillbeback]

For as long as I can recall --like 10 years-- this board has been obsessed with getting a really tall point guard.

Why?

For me personally

I was always taught (as well as have heard on TV/radio) that height and wingspan are 2 of the greatest advantages that you cannot reach. It's actually an unfair advantage as long as the person is a decent worker. Dante as a PG at that size is awesome. Imagine being able to see over the defense of every pick and roll. In my opinion, size can nullify skill in some instances.

Jason Collins guarding Dwight in the second ATL series.
Klay Thompson on Chris Paul this season.

Yeah, I guess.

I mean it sounds good in theory, and in some specific circumstances, but if we look historically, who are all the great tall point guards?

I hate this argument. How can a player's exceptional size for a position be looked at as a negative? Especially when they bring everything else to the table. Livingston didnt handle or move as quick as exum and was more lithe, that is more attributable to his never living up to his 4th selection than some superstitious assumption about being "too tall" to play pg.

Is there is a certain cut off where a point guard is too tall to be considered a true point guard? Mcw seemed pretty decent his rookie year.

[MagicFan101]

I hate this argument. How can a player's exceptional size for a position be looked at as a negative? Especially when they bring everything else to the table. Livingston didnt handle or move as quick as exum and was more lithe, that is more attributable to his never living up to his 4th selection than some superstitious assumption about being "too tall" to play pg.

Is there is a certain cut off where a point guard is too tall to be considered a true point guard? Mcw seemed pretty decent his rookie year.

The Shaun Livingston comparison was one I worried about early in this past season when we first started really talking about this draft class. Livingston is a nice player. His problem has always been an inability to stay healthy and I for one blame a lot of this on his size. Height isn't the only issue for this. The issue is the combination of extreme height for the position with a very light frame. A long skinny bone breaks easier than a short, thick bone...

A year later (a.k.a now) Exum measured in 20 lbs heavier at the combine (at 18 years old!) than Livingston. So Exum essentially has a young SG body with PG skills.

This is why I no longer worry about his height. It is all about health for me, not impact on playing style.

Every player is at risk for injury but look at extremely long / tall yet relatively skinny (for their height) players like Livingston and Yao. Injuries seem to follow them more so than other players.

[Orlwillbeback]

I hate this argument. How can a player's exceptional size for a position be looked at as a negative? Especially when they bring everything else to the table. Livingston didnt handle or move as quick as exum and was more lithe, that is more attributable to his never living up to his 4th selection than some superstitious assumption about being "too tall" to play pg.

Is there is a certain cut off where a point guard is too tall to be considered a true point guard? Mcw seemed pretty decent his rookie year.

The Shaun Livingston comparison was one I worried about early in this past season when we first started really talking about this draft class. Livingston is a nice player. His problem has always been an inability to stay healthy and I for one blame a lot of this on his size. Height isn't the only issue for this. The issue is the combination of extreme height for the position with a very light frame. A long skinny bone breaks easier than a short, thick bone...

A year later (a.k.a now) Exum measured in 20 lbs heavier at the combine (at 18 years old!) than Livingston. So Exum essentially has a young SG body with PG skills.

This is why I no longer worry about his height. It is all about health for me, not impact on playing style.

Every player is at risk for injury but look at extremely long / tall yet relatively skinny (for their height) players like Livingston and Yao. Injuries seem to follow them more so than other players.

agreed and i would also like to add that playing style comes into play as well. Reggie Miller was tall and skinny as well but knew how to protect his body from injury whereas livingston didnt have the same success.

[Devin 1L]

For me personally

I was always taught (as well as have heard on TV/radio) that height and wingspan are 2 of the greatest advantages that you cannot reach. It's actually an unfair advantage as long as the person is a decent worker. Dante as a PG at that size is awesome. Imagine being able to see over the defense of every pick and roll. In my opinion, size can nullify skill in some instances.

Jason Collins guarding Dwight in the second ATL series.
Klay Thompson on Chris Paul this season.

Yeah, I guess.

I mean it sounds good in theory, and in some specific circumstances, but if we look historically, who are all the great tall point guards?

I hate this argument. How can a player's exceptional size for a position be looked at as a negative? Especially when they bring everything else to the table. Livingston didnt handle or move as quick as exum and was more lithe, that is more attributable to his never living up to his 4th selection than some superstitious assumption about being "too tall" to play pg.

Is there is a certain cut off where a point guard is too tall to be considered a true point guard? Mcw seemed pretty decent his rookie year.

It wasn't really an argument so much as it was a question. One which you've failed to answer, I might add.

[Orlwillbeback]

It wasn't really an argument so much as it was a question. One which you've failed to answer, I might add.

i personally dont feel like looking up every successful point guard that's ever been 6'6 or taller, but i just really cant see how this is seen as a negative when the player has all the other traits in a point gaurd that are necessary to be good. You can ask the same question for every position: "who have been all the great players with unusually great height for the position" but answering it wont lead to anything meaningful imo.

[thelead]

Why does it matter? If Exum ends up being a combo guard, that's fine too. We already have a combo guard with great potential that can share the playmaking duties.

[JF5]

Why does it matter? If Exum ends up being a combo guard, that's fine too. We already have a combo guard with great potential that can share the playmaking duties.

This right here...

[OrlandO]

Considering Exum is 18, what are the chances he improves his max vert from 34.5? If chances are good, what would be realistic expectations?

Max vert is an overrated, poorly measured predictor. Doug Mcdermott had a higher max vert than Blake Griffin but no one on the planet would say Mcbuckets is a better athlete than Griffin.

I asked two questions. You answered neither of them. I was just wondering if it's common for a player as young as he is to increase his vert with the help of nba trainers over the next 1-2 years or if prospects like him tend to be maxed out already by that age. Also, Griffin vs McDermott is a terrible example. Even on paper 6'10 griffin's 35.5 max vert is far more impressive than 6' 7.75" McDermott's 36.5 max vert. Griffin also completely destroyed him in no step vert.

[Devin 1L]

It wasn't really an argument so much as it was a question. One which you've failed to answer, I might add.

i personally dont feel like looking up every successful point guard that's ever been 6'6 or taller,

The fact that you feel as though you'd have to 'look it up' kind of answers my question.

but i just really cant see how this is seen as a negative when the player has all the other traits in a point gaurd that are necessary to be good. You can ask the same question for every position: "who have been all the great players with unusually great height for the position" but answering it wont lead to anything meaningful imo.

Why not?

That's where I'm going with this.

Sure, in theory, the taller the better. But as a player/person gets taller, it's not as if it's just purely additional height, or just purely additional "better." Why is it such a dismissed notion that additional height, while it might add benefit to one area, also might be a negative in another area. Why isn't that viewed as possible? Why is it just taller, therefore better?

I think there's a reason we don't see successful 6'6"+ point guards. Probably the same reason we don't see successful 7' two guards.

[thelead]

It wasn't really an argument so much as it was a question. One which you've failed to answer, I might add.

i personally dont feel like looking up every successful point guard that's ever been 6'6 or taller,

The fact that you feel as though you'd have to 'look it up' kind of answers my question.

but i just really cant see how this is seen as a negative when the player has all the other traits in a point gaurd that are necessary to be good. You can ask the same question for every position: "who have been all the great players with unusually great height for the position" but answering it wont lead to anything meaningful imo.

Why not?

That's where I'm going with this.

Sure, in theory, the taller the better. But as a player/person gets taller, it's not as if it's just purely additional height, or just purely additional "better." Why is it such a dismissed notion that additional height, while it might add benefit to one area, also might be a negative in another area. Why isn't that viewed as possible? Why is it just taller, therefore better?

I think there's a reason we don't see successful 6'6"+ point guards. Probably the same reason we don't see successful 7' two guards.

Because when they're that tall they were tall when they were kids too. Which means their coaches just stuck them in the paint to rebound and defend.

SVG loves to talk about this all the time when discussing the problem with youth basketball in the US. It's why young international players are often more skilled in comparison to our young players.

[Smooth_E]

Also, (if we draft Dante) he's going to be working out with a bunch of gym rats too (Oladipo, Harris, Harkless, Nicholson, O'Quinn) that will push him to improve his body. I'm really excited with the potential to draft a 6-6 (maybe even 6-7 or 6-8 eventually, men don't stop growing until age 22 approx.) point guard.

i grew to 6'2 in high school and didnt gain another inch. dont know where you got that stat of not stop growing until 22.

I work in health care administration. I speak to many doctors regularly. I'm 5'11" and was hoping to be taller so I've asked many including my own primary care physician. 22 is the average age men stop growing.

[Smooth_E]

For as long as I can recall --like 10 years-- this board has been obsessed with getting a really tall point guard.

Why?

For me personally

I was always taught (as well as have heard on TV/radio) that height and wingspan are 2 of the greatest advantages that you cannot reach. It's actually an unfair advantage as long as the person is a decent worker. Dante as a PG at that size is awesome. Imagine being able to see over the defense of every pick and roll. In my opinion, size can nullify skill in some instances.

Jason Collins guarding Dwight in the second ATL series.
Klay Thompson on Chris Paul this season.

Yeah, I guess.

I mean it sounds good in theory, and in some specific circumstances, but if we look historically, who are all the great tall point guards?

That's the thing, there have only been 2 truly great tall PGs (Magic and Penny) and not many of them (above 6-5) in NBA history. If Exum's quickness and first step are for real, we may be on to something good here. The shooting, the defense, and experience can all come in time and with hard work, the instincts and the length are a gift.

[thelead]

Also, (if we draft Dante) he's going to be working out with a bunch of gym rats too (Oladipo, Harris, Harkless, Nicholson, O'Quinn) that will push him to improve his body. I'm really excited with the potential to draft a 6-6 (maybe even 6-7 or 6-8 eventually, men don't stop growing until age 22 approx.) point guard.

i grew to 6'2 in high school and didnt gain another inch. dont know where you got that stat of not stop growing until 22.

I work in health care administration. I speak to many doctors regularly. I'm 5'11" and was hoping to be taller so I've asked many including my own primary care physician. 22 is the average age men stop growing.

I've heard this before as well. It might be an exception thing though and most stop growing way before.

[Nyce_1]

Not sure if this was posted yet, but here's a new (I think) youtube highlight mix for Exum. I've never seen some of this footage and was a bit impressed with some of his moves.I personally like the move he pulled at 3:13. Definitely see more of the combo guard skills in him, and that's fantastic to me.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90-ooMTzk4[/youtube]

Sorry if the video was already posted.

[Orlwillbeback]

It wasn't really an argument so much as it was a question. One which you've failed to answer, I might add.

i personally dont feel like looking up every successful point guard that's ever been 6'6 or taller,

The fact that you feel as though you'd have to 'look it up' kind of answers my question.

but i just really cant see how this is seen as a negative when the player has all the other traits in a point gaurd that are necessary to be good. You can ask the same question for every position: "who have been all the great players with unusually great height for the position" but answering it wont lead to anything meaningful imo.

Why not?

That's where I'm going with this.

Sure, in theory, the taller the better. But as a player/person gets taller, it's not as if it's just purely additional height, or just purely additional "better." Why is it such a dismissed notion that additional height, while it might add benefit to one area, also might be a negative in another area. Why isn't that viewed as possible? Why is it just taller, therefore better?

I think there's a reason we don't see successful 6'6"+ point guards. Probably the same reason we don't see successful 7' two guards.

I think you are reaching hard here to find reasons against exum. You can't possibly be suggesting he would be a better prospect if he were a few inches shorter, only because there are more point guards historically who have been successful at that height. You are literally ignoring all other factors except height and it isn't right.

[platinuma1]

Yeah, I was 6'0 without going into high school, 6'3.75 coming out of high school, and couple years later I'm now 6'5

I was speaking from experience and personal life as I know a lot of other bball guys who grew taller aswell, not everyone continues growing till 21-22, but it isn't uncommon to run into something who experienced another growth spurt

[OrlandO]

I personally like the move he pulled at 3:13.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90-ooMTzk4[/youtube]

Reminds me of MJ's move and dunk against the Knicks. Exum's wasn't nearly as impressive, but still made me think of this...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=330HeLlv52U[/youtube]

[MagicStarwipe]

Not sure if this was posted yet, but here's a new (I think) youtube highlight mix for Exum. I've never seen some of this footage and was a bit impressed with some of his moves.I personally like the move he pulled at 3:13. Definitely see more of the combo guard skills in him, and that's fantastic to me.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x90-ooMTzk4[/youtube]

Sorry if the video was already posted.

I don't see how that size, athleticism and skill-set won't translate to the NBA. Looks like a special player if he can at least become a threat with his jumpshot.

[basketballRob]

of for crying out loud, smart is not a better athlete than exum because of the max vert measurement at the combine.

If you really give a **** about the combine, exum killed everything EXCEPT the max vert.

What did he do better than Smart. Smart had a better Vertical jump, better agility test, and did 19 reps on the weights. "killed it" is a bit of a stretch for Exum.

[Orlwillbeback]

of for crying out loud, smart is not a better athlete than exum because of the max vert measurement at the combine.

If you really give a **** about the combine, exum killed everything EXCEPT the max vert.

What did he do better than Smart. Smart had a better Vertical jump, better agility test, and did 19 reps on the weights. "killed it" is a bit of a stretch for Exum.

You are factually wrong:

It was Dante who had the better agility test at 10.75 seconds. Smart was at 10.82 seconds.

Shuttle run: Dante 2.88 vs Smart 2.96

Three quater sprint: 3.19 seconds vs smart: 3.26

Exum is quicker and faster in tests and in game than smart.