Michael Beasley

[dookieguy]

Durant's pre-draft measurements with shoes was 6'10.25", if he grew just a bit, he'd be rounded off to 6'11"

And again, I point out that Beasley's DRAFT measurements with shoes is 6'8.25"

I don't understand what you don't understand about it.

[mopper8]

Durant's pre-draft measurements with shoes was 6'10.25", if he grew just a bit, he'd be rounded off to 6'11"

And again, I point out that Beasley's DRAFT measurements with shoes is 6'8.25"

I don't understand what you don't understand about it.

He proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt! lol.

Beasley is 21. Labeling him a bust is stupid. Jeez.

There's another PF who was 21 during his 2nd year, and put up these #s per-36

17.6 pts, 6.5 rbs, 46.1 fg% That's Dirk. Beasley is putting up per-36 now:
17.8 pts, 7.6 rbs, 44.8%fg%

I'm not too worried. Not saying he's going to be Dirk; just pointing out, there is a lot of time to grow.

[I Never Lied]

Durant's pre-draft measurements with shoes was 6'10.25", if he grew just a bit, he'd be rounded off to 6'11"

And again, I point out that Beasley's DRAFT measurements with shoes is 6'8.25"

I don't understand what you don't understand about it.

If. If. If.

We aren’t going to wonder IF Durant grew so we can round off numbers to support your withering argument. Durant has known Beasley since elementary school, Durant stood there right next to Beasley (while towering over him) and said Mike was 6'7 to his face. Shoes don’t make you grow, and in this case the only purpose they serve in your argument is to DETRACT attention away from Beasley's actual height.

[Miklo]

Beasley is 21. Labeling him a bust is stupid. Jeez.

There's another PF who was 21 during his 2nd year, and put up these #s per-36

17.6 pts, 6.5 rbs, 46.1 fg% That's Dirk. Beasley is putting up per-36 now:
17.8 pts, 7.6 rbs, 44.8%fg%

I'm not too worried. Not saying he's going to be Dirk; just pointing out, there is a lot of time to grow.

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

[mopper8]

I'd also add that most adult men grow at least an inch between the ages of 18-25

T-Mac great 2 inches in his first 6-7 years in the league, e.g.

The Heat's Dorell Wright came into the league at 6'7 and is a legit now 6'9. It's not uncommon.

Pretty obvious watching Beasley out on the court that he's a little taller and thicker than Haslem, putting him at around 6'9. And he'll definitely fill out some, and probably grow a little in height, in the next 4-5 years.

[mopper8]

Beasley is 21. Labeling him a bust is stupid. Jeez.

There's another PF who was 21 during his 2nd year, and put up these #s per-36

17.6 pts, 6.5 rbs, 46.1 fg% That's Dirk. Beasley is putting up per-36 now:
17.8 pts, 7.6 rbs, 44.8%fg%

I'm not too worried. Not saying he's going to be Dirk; just pointing out, there is a lot of time to grow.

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

Yeah, I mean, to add to that, 6 months ago, if someone put an Andray Blatche vs Michael Beasley thread up on the player comparison board, anyone picking Blatche would've been laughed off the site. Now, not only do they have that thread up, the consensus is in favor of Blatche. Of course, nobody likes to mention that when Blatche was in a similar situation to Beasley (fighting with vets for minutes, not playing as a primary option), he struggled too: 9 ppg, 5 rbg in 21 mpg pre-All-Star break. Not to mention Blatche is in his 5th year now? I mean, that is such a good, illustrative comparison IMO.

Beas is doing well in a tough situation. He's not even the clear-cut #2 option; that's probably Jermaine O'Neal. There is a loong way to go.

[Chosen01]

Theres no point in arguing with this guy, in his mind beasley is a bust,nothing can change it, until beasley starts proving otherwise.

And yea Durant is around 6'10 when he was measured, don't see why its so hard to understand, hes grown an inch since then. I've even heard Espn analysts say Durant is practically a 6'11 Kobe before.

There are 2 inches separated from them, Beasley is 6'8-6'9 not 6'7 as you don't play basketball w/o shoes.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? HES 6'8

want me to repeat?

Number 2 picks are supposed to be franchise players, not sixth men, especially after the Heat tanked and entire season to get the number 2 pick.

Beasley wasn't picked to be our franchise player..why? because the heat have someone named Dwyane Wade. If the Heat get Amare in summer,even if living up to expectations as a second year player, now he obviously wouldn't be better than Amare anyways, being a sixth man as a 21 year old on a championship contending team is definetly not bust worthy at all, tbh sixth man or not. Hes 21, and the 11th youngest in the leauge, big men take time to develop anyways.

God, I'd love to see you when Kobe was in his second year or Nash just to LOL at you now.

[Blame Rasho]

Seriously people are still going on about how tall he is....

Who gives a ****...

[I Never Lied]

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

If you notice all those "late bloomers" were drafted in the 90's. If you have to go back 10 years to find a situation comparable to Beasley's that should tell you something. All those players made marketed improvements in their first 3 years. Beasley's per 36 numbers are actually worse than his rookie season and he is shooting a lower percentage this year. So the fact that he's not even pointed in the right direction should tell you something.

[Miamis3rdRing]

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

If you notice all those "late bloomers" were drafted in the 90's. If you have to go back 10 years to find a situation comparable to Beasley's that should tell you something. All those players made marketed improvements in their first 3 years. Beasley's per 36 numbers are actually worse than his rookie season and he is shooting a lower percentage this year. So the fact that he's not even pointed in the right direction should tell you something.

I definitely don't agree with everything you've said in this thread, but the bolded part is true. And that worries me as a Heat fan. I really feel he's taken a step backwards this year.

[I Never Lied]

Theres no point in arguing with this guy, in his mind beasley is a bust,nothing can change it, until beasley starts proving otherwise.

And yea Durant is around 6'10 when he was measured, don't see why its so hard to understand, hes grown an inch since then. I've even heard Espn analysts say Durant is practically a 6'11 Kobe before.

There are 2 inches separated from them, Beasley is 6'8-6'9 not 6'7 as you don't play basketball w/o shoes.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND? HES 6'8

want me to repeat?

Number 2 picks are supposed to be franchise players, not sixth men, especially after the Heat tanked and entire season to get the number 2 pick.

Beasley wasn't picked to be our franchise player..why? because the heat have someone named Dwyane Wade. If the Heat get Amare in summer,even if living up to expectations as a second year player, now he obviously wouldn't be better than Amare anyways, being a sixth man as a 21 year old on a championship contending team is definetly not bust worthy at all, tbh sixth man or not. Hes 21, and the 11th youngest in the leauge, big men take time to develop anyways.

God, I'd love to see you when Kobe was in his second year or Nash just to LOL at you now.

So judging by the hearsay you've gathered from sports center analyst and anecdotal evidence that 21 year old men may possibly still grow, you have surmised that Beasley has grown 2 inches?

1. You’re lying, no one has ever called Durant 6'11. Please tell the truth and shame the devil.

2. Beasley was picked to be a dominant post presence, not a midrange chucker. Because the Heat lack the post player to complement Wade's perimeter brilliance, they now have to fork over 120 million to Amare who will be declining in 3 years and still under contract for about 55 million. All because Beasley is really 6'7 jump shooter and not the 6'10 paint player he was drafted to be.


That is a bust my friend.

[mopper8]

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

If you notice all those "late bloomers" were drafted in the 90's. If you have to go back 10 years to find a situation comparable to Beasley's that should tell you something. All those players made marketed improvements in their first 3 years. Beasley's per 36 numbers are actually worse than his rookie season and he is shooting a lower percentage this year. So the fact that he's not even pointed in the right direction should tell you something.

Eh, I'm not too worried about that. He's also gone from a bench player to a starter, which is a decent adjustment.

And did I not just mention Andray Blatche as an example of a recent "late bloomer"? Or you could look at Bogut, who's just arriving right now. Or there is Joe Johnson, who was drafted in 01 but didn't really "bloom" until his 3rd or 4th year (at the earliest). Or Josh Smith, who didn't do much till his 3rd and 4th years, and was drafted in 04. Or Joakim Noah, who's taken a huge leap from year 2 to year 3. Or Gerald Wallace, who didn't really do anything until his 5th year and wasn't really great until his 6th year; he was drafted in 01. or Bynum, who wasn't good at all for his first 2 years, was decent his 3rd, and really arrived his 4th and 5th years.

Do those guys not count? Do you really believe that we've now entered some magical era of NBA talent where players either arrive as finished products in years 1 or 2, or are busts? Really?

[Miklo]

Yes, I always like to go with this argument. There have been way too many NBA players whose careers took years to blossom to label really anybody as a bust this early on. Aside from direct examples like Dirk, you also have to look at the general career progressions of players like Kobe, TMac, Nash, etc etc. It's really the exception to the rule to draft a LeBron, Durant, Tyreke Evans, etc and quite common even for top 3 picks to take longer to become the first option for a team.

If you notice all those "late bloomers" were drafted in the 90's. If you have to go back 10 years to find a situation comparable to Beasley's that should tell you something. All those players made marketed improvements in their first 3 years. Beasley's per 36 numbers are actually worse than his rookie season and he is shooting a lower percentage this year. So the fact that he's not even pointed in the right direction should tell you something.

I don't think how far back my examples date really means much, to be honest. I think I just did a shallow survey in my mind and thought of the biggest names that came to mind Nor did I go through statistics and make sure all conditions applied. My point was, there's no basis for disqualifying a player from stardom this early. Now I do agree that Beas took a dip this season but you can't necessarily attribute that to his progression as a player. There are plenty of factors at play, namely his role on the team.

[I Never Lied]

Eh, I'm not too worried about that. He's also gone from a bench player to a starter, which is a decent adjustment.

And did I not just mention Andray Blatche as an example of a recent "late bloomer"? Or you could look at Bogut, who's just arriving right now. Or there is Joe Johnson, who was drafted in 01 but didn't really "bloom" until his 3rd or 4th year (at the earliest). Or Josh Smith, who didn't do much till his 3rd and 4th years, and was drafted in 04. Or Joakim Noah, who's taken a huge leap from year 2 to year 3. Or Gerald Wallace, who didn't really do anything until his 5th year and wasn't really great until his 6th year; he was drafted in 01. or Bynum, who wasn't good at all for his first 2 years, was decent his 3rd, and really arrived his 4th and 5th years.

Do those guys not count? Do you really believe that we've now entered some magical era of NBA talent where players either arrive as finished products in years 1 or 2, or are busts? Really?

1. Andray Blatche is the exact same player he was 2 year ago. The fact that he's putting up numbers as the first option on a horrendous team does not mean he has suddenly come into his own.

2. Joe Johnson was playing with Amare, Marion, Marbury/Nash. It is easy to see he had star ability, and thus was given a 70 million dollar contract before he had ever really done anything.

3. Bogut didn’t JUST start being good. You could already see what he was going to do given his size and skill set. Thus he was also given a 60 million dollar extension before anything really popped off.

4. Gerald Wallace was draft by a LEGIT CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER and was playing behind prime Stojakovic and prime Doug Christie. Of course he wasn’t going to bloom. Not to mention he was always injured and only played 54,37 and 43 games in his first three years.

Do you see the trend? All of those guys you mentioned were either playing on really good teams with really good players in front of them or already showed what they could do and got big contracts anyway. You cant compare them to Beasley, who is playing with a washed up Jermaine O’Neal and an eternal role player in Haslem on the 14th best team in the league.

[Sid the Squid]

The only reason Beasley's getting the minutes he's getting is because he was the 2nd pick in the draft and the heat don't want to admit the mistake..Happens all the time in sports..

[Miklo]

And did I not just mention Andray Blatche as an example of a recent "late bloomer"? Or you could look at Bogut, who's just arriving right now. Or there is Joe Johnson, who was drafted in 01 but didn't really "bloom" until his 3rd or 4th year (at the earliest). Or Josh Smith, who didn't do much till his 3rd and 4th years, and was drafted in 04. Or Joakim Noah, who's taken a huge leap from year 2 to year 3. Or Gerald Wallace, who didn't really do anything until his 5th year and wasn't really great until his 6th year; he was drafted in 01. or Bynum, who wasn't good at all for his first 2 years, was decent his 3rd, and really arrived his 4th and 5th years.

Do those guys not count? Do you really believe that we've now entered some magical era of NBA talent where players either arrive as finished products in years 1 or 2, or are busts? Really?

Those are good examples.

I Never Lied, you pick apart these examples as if because of situational factors you can't credit the players for their improvements but my entire point was that Beasley needs to be in a better role/situation to open up more. Right now he's simply just overshadowed and overcrowded.

EDIT: I should add, I am actually with those who question whether Beasley will live up to expectations. I only contend that it's too early to make the call.

[Jimmy76]

And did I not just mention Andray Blatche as an example of a recent "late bloomer"? Or you could look at Bogut, who's just arriving right now. Or there is Joe Johnson, who was drafted in 01 but didn't really "bloom" until his 3rd or 4th year (at the earliest). Or Josh Smith, who didn't do much till his 3rd and 4th years, and was drafted in 04. Or Joakim Noah, who's taken a huge leap from year 2 to year 3. Or Gerald Wallace, who didn't really do anything until his 5th year and wasn't really great until his 6th year; he was drafted in 01. or Bynum, who wasn't good at all for his first 2 years, was decent his 3rd, and really arrived his 4th and 5th years.

Do those guys not count? Do you really believe that we've now entered some magical era of NBA talent where players either arrive as finished products in years 1 or 2, or are busts? Really?

Those are good examples.

I Never Lied, you pick apart these examples as if because of situational factors you can't credit the players for their improvements but my entire point was that Beasley needs to be in a better role/situation to open up more. Right now he's simply just overshadowed and overcrowded.

his game needs some work too

all those mid-range jumpers have to turn into 3's and drives to the bucket

[I Never Lied]

I Never Lied, you pick apart these examples as if because of situational factors you can't credit the players for their improvements but my entire point was that Beasley needs to be in a better role/situation to open up more. Right now he's simply just overshadowed and overcrowded.

EDIT: I should add, I am actually with those who question whether Beasley will live up to expectations. I only contend that it's too early to make the call.

Yeah, you had better edit, because I've made my case too well. You are using the same situational factors to support Beasley yet take issue with me when I use them to show he has nothing in common with Mooper8's examples. You cant have it both ways.


Beasley is anything but overshadowed and overcrowded. He plays on the 14th best team in the league and the roster is full of trash from top to bottom. No excuse for this 6' 7" jump shooting tweener to bust.

[SOUP]

Eh, I'm not too worried about that. He's also gone from a bench player to a starter, which is a decent adjustment.

And did I not just mention Andray Blatche as an example of a recent "late bloomer"? Or you could look at Bogut, who's just arriving right now. Or there is Joe Johnson, who was drafted in 01 but didn't really "bloom" until his 3rd or 4th year (at the earliest). Or Josh Smith, who didn't do much till his 3rd and 4th years, and was drafted in 04. Or Joakim Noah, who's taken a huge leap from year 2 to year 3. Or Gerald Wallace, who didn't really do anything until his 5th year and wasn't really great until his 6th year; he was drafted in 01. or Bynum, who wasn't good at all for his first 2 years, was decent his 3rd, and really arrived his 4th and 5th years.

Do those guys not count? Do you really believe that we've now entered some magical era of NBA talent where players either arrive as finished products in years 1 or 2, or are busts? Really?

1. Andray Blatche is the exact same player he was 2 year ago. The fact that he's putting up numbers as the first option on a horrendous team does not mean he has suddenly come into his own.

2. Joe Johnson was playing with Amare, Marion, Marbury/Nash. It is easy to see he had star ability, and thus was given a 70 million dollar contract before he had ever really done anything.

3. Bogut didn’t JUST start being good. You could already see what he was going to do given his size and skill set. Thus he was also given a 60 million dollar extension before anything really popped off.

4. Gerald Wallace was draft by a LEGIT CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER and was playing behind prime Stojakovic and prime Doug Christie. Of course he wasn’t going to bloom. Not to mention he was always injured and only played 54,37 and 43 games in his first three years.

Do you see the trend? All of those guys you mentioned were either playing on really good teams with really good players in front of them or already showed what they could do and got big contracts anyway. You cant compare them to Beasley, who is playing with a washed up Jermaine O’Neal and an eternal role player in Haslem on the 14th best team in the league.

1. Blatche started putting up those stats at the beginning of the season... Off the bench as the sixth man, while that team was projected to be top 4 in the east.

2. What do you mean before he really didn't do anything??? He was given 31.5 minutes as a rookie and he posted 10, 4, 4 very efficiently. A 6'7 guard-forward that can pass and rebound. During the 03-04 season he posted 17, 4, 5, and 1.1 steals. Didn't do anything....???

3. Bogut, my favooooooooorite...... Of course he got that extension! He was their #1 pick! They were all hoping he would develop to what he is now, but up until the second half of this season everyone was down on this guy. Even Kwame Brown got a similar contract when he was resigned.

4. You have a point there for Gerald Wallace, he was very injury prone.

With all that aside, I don't think it's time to label Beasley a huge bust. Overrated before being drafted? Definitely, will he live up to it? Hell no. But I can see Beasley putting up 18 and 8 efficiently some day.

[Miklo]

Yeah, you had better edit, because I've made my case too well. You are using the same situational factors to support Beasley yet take issue with me when I use them to show he has nothing in common with Mooper8's examples. You cant have it both ways.

I'm confused...I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I edited because it seemed you were misunderstanding my intentions. I agree with a lot of what has been said about Beasley but like I said, I don't think it makes a lot of sense for you to call him a bust as his second season comes to a close. But, you seem convinced I guess so agree to disagree..