RealGM

He does all of his damage when he plays the four. Coming into the NBA I would have never guessed he would develop into a legit NBA Power Forward.

He does look thin, but he is bigger than some people think. An e-mail from John Nash with Outlaw's fall camp numbers from a few years ago:

6'9.5"
228 lbs

And you can't forget about his 48" max. vertical leap! I think our frontcourt is now solidified.

SF: Webster/Jones
PF: Aldridge/Outlaw
C: Oden/Przybilla

Dakotah612 wrote:He does all of his damage when he plays the four. Coming into the NBA I would have never guessed he would develop into a legit NBA Power Forward.

He does look thin, but he is bigger than some people think. An e-mail from John Nash with Outlaw's fall camp numbers from a few years ago:

6'9.5"
228 lbs

And you can't forget about his 48" max. vertical leap! I think our frontcourt is now solidified.

SF: Webster/Jones
PF: Aldridge/Outlaw
C: Oden/Przybilla

You're kidding, right? I can't find Outlaw's measurements, but I'm guessing he is pretty close to a 9' standing reach, if not a bit taller with the very long arms he has. With a 48" vert, that would mean he could not only touch the top of the backboard, but he could clear it by 6". That's almost, but not quite, tall enough to dunk over the entire backboard. Where did you hear that he had a vert that high? I've heard Dwight Stones say that he had a 43" vert, and that guy set ten world records in the high jump.

Somehow, I don't think Outlaws getting within 6" of 48" if that high.

LINK

The combination of his height (6-foot-7), his reach (a wing span of a 7-footer), and his great leaping ability (a 48-inch vertical jump means he could touch the top of a backboard), made Outlaw a "can't miss" prospect in Mississippi prep circles.

I think "combo forward" is the most accurate assessment. He is not a pure prototypical SF or PF. He can play both and he thinks of himself as a natural 2. Who the hell knows, lol.

Dakotah612 wrote:LINK

The combination of his height (6-foot-7), his reach (a wing span of a 7-footer), and his great leaping ability (a 48-inch vertical jump means he could touch the top of a backboard), made Outlaw a "can't miss" prospect in Mississippi prep circles.

I still think it's bogus. They don't cite any source to suggest he was actually measured with that kind of leaping ability, and he has never demonstrated being a better leaper than, say, Dwight Howard, and with a 48" vert he would be a full foot better than Howard. Do you honestly think he's a full foot better than Howard in elevation? Have you ever seen him dunk, block, or otherwise leap where his hand even got to within 6" of the top of the backboard, let alone a foot higher than that?

My guess is that's one big typo, or an urban legend that has been repeated a few too many times.

any other source is going to say Travis has a 40-inch vert

The top of the backboard is 156" (13ft). If he has a standing reach of 108" (9ft). Then that would put the top of the backboard at 48"



Im sure hes up there (thats a pretty old picture).. I also saw him hit just about that same spot, probably a little higher, as he was leaving the court at fan fest.

Fitz303 wrote:The top of the backboard is 156" (13ft). If he has a standing reach of 108" (9ft). Then that would put the top of the backboard at 48"

(picture)

Im sure hes up there (thats a pretty old picture).. I also saw him hit just about that same spot, probably a little higher, as he was leaving the court at fan fest.

That picture puts him right at about 40".

Theres no way thats 8" off.. Looks more like 5" and that would put him right around 43". Thats an old picture and he got higher when I saw him do it. I doubt its quite 48" but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 45"

Fitz303 wrote:Theres no way thats 8" off.. Looks more like 5" and that would put him right around 43". Thats an old picture and he got higher when I saw him do it. I doubt its quite 48" but I wouldn't be surprised if it was 45"

If that's a 43" vertical there, and his standing reach is 9' (with his arms, I'd even think it might be longer than that, but I can't find a measurement to confirm or contradict that), then Outlaw has the smallest hands and fingers of an NBA player that I've ever seen.

Personally, I don't know how high he can jump....I was ducking for cover.

~Rodney Carney~

Outlaw is anyone and everyone...He can play all positions and can isolate and drain jumpers in the face of the best defender of the other team...Outlaw Immortall......

I don't see Channing Frye in your long-term plans Dak. Not that I mind.

not this again.

he's more of a SF/SG type of player. i haven't seen him much, but i don't know how much of a post game he has to say hes a deffinite PF.

Against most teams, I hate that lineup Nate plays at the end of games with Travis at PF and Aldridge at C.

Pinot love wrote:Against most teams, I hate that lineup Nate plays at the end of games with Travis at PF and Aldridge at C.

Why exactly do you hate that lineup? It wins games. I can imagine it has something to do with rebounding. But You have to have Travis, James Jones, and Roy in at the end. Are you suggesting a different center?

UGotThrilled wrote:Why exactly do you hate that lineup? It wins games. I can imagine it has something to do with rebounding. But You have to have Travis, James Jones, and Roy in at the end. Are you suggesting a different center?

I imagine it has something to do with my desire to see the Blazers win more and McMillan's desire to "develop" the team.

That lineup does not win as many games as the optimal lineup could. It is also a lineup that will not exist when Oden is apart of the team.

When we are at full power, Aldridge and Oden will be in at PF and C; X will be at "PG", Roy will be at SG and Webster/Jones/Outlaw will be the SF, unless someone is traded.

In the minutes Nate has been playing this playground lineup during close competition, the Blazers should be playing PrzyB at C, Aldridge at PF, Outlaw at SF, Roy at a SG/PG role and Blake at PG, with Webster/Jones included depending on hotness and matchups, at the expense of Blake.

It's up to people more educated and experienced in the game to decided when and how much the perimeter players should be included, but the misuse of Przybilla is obviously due to a disposition to the style and position McMillan played with Seattle. The Blazers are becoming a strong perimeter team with no balls. This will not work in the NBA.

As far as Oden goes, we cannot depend on one player to provide interior strength on offense and defense. In order to prevent a Bulls-like fallout the Blazers will not only need to secure Roy, but prevent other teams from disabling him, by physical and strategical means.

In the end this means we must retain Joel Przybilla. He is an underrated defensive force who is a quality pick and important role playing asset.

Pinot love wrote:The Blazers are becoming a strong perimeter team with no balls. This will not work in the NBA.

Minor correction. This will not work in a seven game series at the Conf Finals/NBA Finals level unless the other team is equally sans onions. Against a team like Boston or Detroit or San Antonio, you need a strong inside presence to last through a series. During the regular season, however, we've seen teams like Dallas be able to win 60+ games with basically a donut configuration.

As far as Oden goes, we cannot depend on one player to provide interior strength on offense and defense. In order to prevent a Bulls-like fallout the Blazers will not only need to secure Roy, but prevent other teams from disabling him, by physical and strategical means.

In the end this means we must retain Joel Przybilla. He is an underrated defensive force who is a quality pick and important role playing asset.

Absolutely agree on Przy unless we can get another bruising big back in the trade. Still, he obviously fits well from a chemistry perspective, is a strong rebounder and shot-blocker, and sets an awfully mean pick, so I'm not sure what else we would want in our backup center. With him and Oden, we're in a position where no matter who is on the floor there will always be an intimidator out there to ensure shots are contested, rebounds are battled for and hard screens are set.

mojomarc wrote:Minor correction. This will not work in a seven game series at the Conf Finals/NBA Finals level unless the other team is equally sans onions. Against a team like Boston or Detroit or San Antonio, you need a strong inside presence to last through a series. During the regular season, however, we've seen teams like Dallas be able to win 60+ games with basically a donut configuration.

Good call. I need to clarify myself further. I didn't mean to imply Nate played the game sans cajones. He was a damn good player I respect. I just don't think he understands the game as well from a frontcourt perspective and that his bias may cause him to put more emphasis on perimeter play than he should.