Brook Lopez: Strength a Serious Concern?

DanDanE420 · Post #1 » by **DanDanE420** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 6:47 pm

I think Brook Lopez is a solid, well-rounded big prospect (Top 8 pick), but is anyone else worried about his lack of strength? It's not his upperbody that really concerns me, it's his base. Base strength (thick legs, stout posterior) allows an otherwise skinny guy like Yao to consistently get deep post position, while relegating guys like Shawn Bradley to the perimeter. Kevin Love, who I have rated slightly ahead of Lopez, has an excellent base, for example.

Considering that Lopez only averages 8.2 boards and shoots less than 50% at the college level, shouldn't this be a major question mark for teams drafting in the Top 5?

Jemini80 · Post #2 » by **Jemini80** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 9:13 pm

I'm concerned just like I was with Greg Oden, that they both clearly abused HGH during their growing stages and it will cause injury concerns. Look at their jaws, and teeth.

Post #3 » by **Ruzious** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 10:25 pm

This thread is not off to a good start.

DaGoodz · Post #4 » by **DaGoodz** » Wed Apr 2, 2008 11:40 pm

Cammo101 · Post #5 » by **Cammo101** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:14 am

Lopez is plenty big and strong enough to be a very good NBA big man.

Canomad · Post #6 » by **Canomad** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:59 am

Jemini80 wrote:I'm concerned just like I was with Greg Oden, that they both clearly abused HGH during their growing stages and it will cause injury concerns. Look at their jaws, and teeth.

HGH would not help any basketball player at anything period. i think basketball is the cleanest sport we have.

The_Pope · Post #7 » by **The_Pope** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 1:04 pm

letsgetit wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

HGH would not help any basketball player at anything period. i think basketball is the cleanest sport we have.

It would help in virtually any sport, including basketball.

Post #8 » by **Stanford** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:16 pm

letsgetit wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

HGH would not help any basketball player at anything period.

Recovery time?

I'm concerned just like I was with Greg Oden, that they both clearly abused HGH during their growing stages and it will cause injury concerns. Look at their jaws, and teeth.

I know some real horse-faced mf'ers that are like 5' 9".

DanDanE420 · Post #9 » by **DanDanE420** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:16 pm

Cammo101 wrote:Lopez is plenty big and strong enough to be a very good NBA big man.

Good, yes. But very good?

With his height and coordination, shouldn't he be shooting over 50% and grabbing more than 8 boards a game? Those are very disturbing numbers, and a direct reflection of his inability to hold his ground in the paint IMO.

Cammo101 · Post #10 » by **Cammo101** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:56 pm

DanDanE420 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Good, yes. But very good?

With his height and coordination, shouldn't he be shooting over 50% and grabbing more than 8 boards a game? Those are very disturbing numbers, and a direct reflection of his inability to hold his ground in the paint IMO.

He is the only good player and a by and large talentless team. Put him on UNC and he shoots 60% from the field and pulls 10 boards a game. He is facing double and triple teams every night at Stanford.

wilt · Post #11 » by **wilt** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:58 pm

low FG% is just as much a reflection of him taking bad shots in parts because of his team

DanDanE420 · Post #12 » by **DanDanE420** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 4:23 pm

Cammo101 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

He is the only good player and a by and large talentless team. Put him on UNC and he shoots 60% from the field and pulls 10 boards a game. He is facing double and triple teams every night at Stanford.

How many lottery big men have the luxury of playing with another first round big man? Stanford is the only team in the country with two first-round frontcourt players. Robin isn't one to create his own offense, but he can certainly catch and finish if you leave him alone.

The truth is, EVERY Top 5 big man is going to see double and triple-teams in CBB. However, how many Top 5 big men have shot less than 50% in college? That's alarming to me.

horaceworthy · Post #13 » by **horaceworthy** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 4:52 pm

DanDanE420 wrote:How many lottery big men have the luxury of playing with another first round big man? Stanford is the only team in the country with two first-round frontcourt players. Robin isn't one to create his own offense, but he can certainly catch and finish if you leave him alone.

Wouldn't playing with another 1st round caliber big man do something to detract from the rebounding numbers?

Also, while Robin is able to catch and finish, he isn't really able to do so unless he's at the rim.

Brook's FG% is a product of him being the most relied upon big man in the nation, on a team that doesn't spread the floor well, or attract defenders away from him by getting into the paint, along with not having a go-to post move other than cocking it over his shoulder and lobbing it towards the rim. Almost every single one of his shots was contested, he didn't have the luxury of boosting his FG% by having bunny shots created for him.

Cammo101 · Post #14 » by **Cammo101** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 4:59 pm

DanDanE420 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

How many lottery big men have the luxury of playing with another first round big man? Stanford is the only team in the country with two first-round frontcourt players. Robin isn't one to create his own offense, but he can certainly catch and finish if you leave him alone.

The truth is, EVERY Top 5 big man is going to see double and triple-teams in CBB. However, how many Top 5 big men have shot less than 50% in college? That's alarming to me.

Hansbrough has Ellington, Lawson, and Green
Love has Collison, Westbrook, and Shipp
Beasley has Walker
Lopez has no one

Robin Lopez is a nice hustle player, but he is offensively inept. As is the rest of his team. Every big man in the 1st round has a lot more weapons to take the load off him than Brook Lopez does. It is not always about having another big to keep from being triple teamed, it is about other scorers. Stanford has no other scorers.

Post #15 » by **UGA Hayes** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 8:15 pm

If there is one thing Brook is unequivocally very good at its getting and holding position in the post. He may not always make the best move from that position but he sure as hell is good about getting post position.

DanDanE420 · Post #16 » by **DanDanE420** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 10:01 pm

Brook Lopez is not the first big man asked to carry a team offensively, nor is he the only one to see double teams.

My question is this: What other impact big man in the NBA put up FG% and rebounding numbers in college comparable to Brook? I really can't think of any. The guy averaged 1.33 points per shot and shot less than 47%. That's mediocre for a guard. For comparison, JJ Hickson shot 60% (1.66 per shot), and his supporting cast was even more inept offensively than Stanford's.

Compare their freshman numbers:

JJ Hickson
28.7 mpg
14.8 ppg
8.5 rpg
1.5 bpg
59.1%
1.66 points per shot

Brook Lopez
25.2 mpg
12.6 ppg
6 rpg
1.7 bpg
49.6%
1.16 points per shot

You cannot tell me these numbers do not scare you if you have a Top 5 pick. If Brook can't shoot 50% or grab 9 boards in the Pac-10, what is he going to do in the Western Conference? It's not like he's going to have a standout supporting cast if he's picked in the Top 5.

It's not even the rebound numbers that really concern me. I don't think he'll ever be great in that area, but he could be solid. It's those percentages. If I am spending a Top 5 pick on an offensive-minded center, he cannot put up those kinds of percentages playing against kids. Brook is a solid prospect, but am I wrong to project him as a 17, 8 at 47% type guy in the pros?

Cammo101 · Post #17 » by **Cammo101** » Thu Apr 3, 2008 11:55 pm

The draft is not about numbers. It is about upside and tools. Lopez has both in spades.

DanDanE420 · Post #18 » by **DanDanE420** » Fri Apr 4, 2008 12:51 am

Cammo101 wrote:The draft is not about numbers. It is about upside and tools. Lopez has both in spades.

DeAndre Jordan has more tools than Brook. Should he be rated higher as well?

Lopez is a good all-around prospect. But Top 5 pick should be reserved for future All-Stars. What skill is going to carry Brook to the All-Star game? He doesn't get enough easy buckets to be a great scorer in the NBA. He's not a great rebounder. Defensively he's average. What impact talent does he have at the next level?

Jonathan Watters · Post #19 » by **Jonathan Watters** » Fri Apr 4, 2008 1:22 am

geez, if Brook Lopez is an average defender, there isn't another average defender in the whole stinking draft. The idea that Robin is the better defensive twin is one of the more confounding myths out there. Brook is probably further ahead of Robin as a defender than he is as a scorer. But Stanford needs Brook's scoring and Robin is still a very good defensive presence, so their respective reputations emerged.

efficiency and usage have an inverse relationship. adjust lopez's numbers for his absurdly high usage rate (stanford relies on him more than Texas relied on durant last year), and his scoring efficiency looks just fine.

Cammo101 · Post #20 » by **Cammo101** » Fri Apr 4, 2008 1:37 am

DanDanE420 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

DeAndre Jordan has more tools than Brook. Should he be rated higher as well?

Lopez is a good all-around prospect. But Top 5 pick should be reserved for future All-Stars. What skill is going to carry Brook to the All-Star game? He doesn't get enough easy buckets to be a great scorer in the NBA. He's not a great rebounder. Defensively he's average. What impact talent does he have at the next level?

Jordan, who I also like, comes with a million times more risk because he is big time unrefined. Those 2 become a risk/reward excersize. Surely you aren't telling me that Lopez is not skilled enough to be an all star in a league where Jamal Magloire, Anthony Mason, Theo Ratliff, Big Z, Brad Miller, Shareef Abdur Rahim, and Dale Davis have all been all stars in the last 10 years.