How much of a risk you believe Bennett is in the lotto?

[ManualRam]

supposedly Bennett's put on 18 lbs since the season ended. keep in mind that his injury was a shoulder injury, not a lower body one.
should that be ignored?

[tidho]

He's risky for the top 5, but he's also super talented so I don't think taking him at any point after that should be considered a risky decision.

[SixerFever215]

HES THE MOST NBA READY PLAYER IN THE DRAFT

[Biscayne Beast]

Dude gain 18 pounds and is up to 261

[MellowRose]

HES THE MOST NBA READY PLAYER IN THE DRAFT

I'd argue Oladipo is.

[SouthJersey]

Zach Randolph

[richboy]

Anybody know what Bennett standing reach is?

Bennett is one of those guys that can scare people because they see tweener. The fact is though he might be a SF with PF even Center length. That combination can be scary to play against. His feet are that of a SF but can play like a PF. Ben Wallace was like that. Although his strengths were on the defensive side. He had the feet of a SF but the length to play much bigger than his size.

Everytime I've watched Bennett I've thought he is a SF who has so much length he can play PF without problem. I really like Bennett. I didn't like Derrick Williams. He was talking about playing SF the second he entered the league. His game was never going to be good at SF. Just not enough ball handling and skill. He is a pretty decent player at PF.Bennett is going to be a tough matchup at PF.

Perhaps Bennett will turn out just to be Al Harrington. In this draft that still worthy of a top 5 pick. Especially if that is his floor. Harrington has been a strong rotation player who has scored 17-20 points per game in a few seasons. Is a career 17 and 7 player PER 36.

again
what good is your 7' wingspan if the guy who is 3 inches taller than you also has the same wingspan? this is the nba, not college anymore. the wingspan might take you far in college, but is not worth a whole lot in the nba unless you're the complete package. the nba is only the best of the best for physical specimens.

remember, wingspan only helps you compensate for your deficits. it does not make your a superior player. hence that is why most tweeners tread water at the nba level. few if any become as legendary as barkley.

You don't play basketball with your head. Saying someone is 3 inches taller than you is near irrelevant. I didn't say wingspan I said standing reach. Which is far more important than wingspan. Wingspan can be misleading.

I wanted to know what Bennett THI was because that will tell you how big he actually will play.

http://www.82games.com/trueheight.htm

It will say if he actually a tweener or not. His THI might be more like 6'9. Which would not be great but good enough at the PF position.

[Novocaine]

In the lotto? Zero risk.

Biggest upside in this draft and his floor is around Al Harrington, as someone said.

[ManualRam]

In the lotto? Zero risk.

Biggest upside in this draft and his floor is around Al Harrington, as someone said.

i'd say harrington is closer to his ceiling than his floor

[richboy]

In the lotto? Zero risk.

Biggest upside in this draft and his floor is around Al Harrington, as someone said.

i'd say harrington is closer to his ceiling than his floor

I wouldn't say Harrington is his ceiling because Al is very perimeter oriented and more a stretch 4 than anything else. Bennett has a better inside the arch game than Al Harrington.

[karkinos]

You don't play basketball with your head. Saying someone is 3 inches taller than you is near irrelevant. I didn't say wingspan I said standing reach. Which is far more important than wingspan. Wingspan can be misleading.

I wanted to know what Bennett THI was because that will tell you how big he actually will play.

http://www.82games.com/trueheight.htm

It will say if he actually a tweener or not. His THI might be more like 6'9. Which would not be great but good enough at the PF position.

your height isn't predominantly governed by your head. you have legs and a torso too.

standing reach, wingspan, whatever. look at that list of players and tell me where the THI is relevant?
aldridge, brandon roy, and rudy gay are the best players on that list
none of them are tweeners
none of them have a THI > 1.0

of the people on that list, ronnie brewer and tyrus thomas utilize their THI. the rest? more likely to be a scrub. sene, cedric simmons, carney, eric hicks, allan ray, etc.

if you're looking for bennett to be a contributor in this league, THI should be the least of the attributes with emphasis. you either play big or your don't. you either play defense or you don't. you either work hard and hustle or you don't. your arm length doesn't matter. jj redick and novak are in the league and they have atrocious THIs. THI has the weakest of correlations with success in the league.

[richboy]

You don't play basketball with your head. Saying someone is 3 inches taller than you is near irrelevant. I didn't say wingspan I said standing reach. Which is far more important than wingspan. Wingspan can be misleading.

I wanted to know what Bennett THI was because that will tell you how big he actually will play.

http://www.82games.com/trueheight.htm

It will say if he actually a tweener or not. His THI might be more like 6'9. Which would not be great but good enough at the PF position.

your height isn't predominantly governed by your head. you have legs and a torso too.

standing reach, wingspan, whatever. look at that list of players and tell me where the THI is relevant?
aldridge, brandon roy, and rudy gay are the best players on that list
none of them are tweeners
none of them have a THI > 1.0

of the people on that list, ronnie brewer and tyrus thomas utilize their THI. the rest? more likely to be a scrub. sene, cedric simmons, carney, eric hicks, allan ray, etc.

if you're looking for bennett to be a contributor in this league, THI should be the least of the attributes with emphasis. you either play big or your don't. you either play defense or you don't. you either work hard and hustle or you don't. your arm length doesn't matter. jj redick and novak are in the league and they have atrocious THIs. THI has the weakest of correlations with success in the league.

The list is for that years draft. I think you should know basketball for more than one year. The point being just because your not ideal size doesn't mean your a tweener. People said Dwade was a tweener. No he wasn't. He had the length and athleticism to play bigger than his height. Based on your comments Charles Barkley is a tweener. No he was not. He was longer than most power forwards. Many said Ben Wallace had no position because he lacked the size to play PF. His length and athleticism made it that he had plenty of size to play the position.

Not sure what you mean you play big or you don't. You play big for reason. Length and athleticism being the prime reason. Length doesn't matter? Unless you just started watching the game find me a list of great players with a negative THI. The only thing a negative THI helps you do is shoot the basketball. The most common attribute of great players is length. Yeah Bennett has issues but this isn't the 2003 draft. I could say those same things about Zach Randolph and they be true. He still would be the best player in this draft.

[karkinos]

The list is for that years draft. I think you should know basketball for more than one year. The point being just because your not ideal size doesn't mean your a tweener. People said Dwade was a tweener. No he wasn't. He had the length and athleticism to play bigger than his height.

now we're getting somewhere
this is where we disagree - the definition of a tweener
i absolutely think wade is a tweener. for me, i generally define tweener as someone who is smaller in size relative to conventional standards of that position. being able to play both positions is applicable for calling someone a tweener, but often implies that the player is small for one position while bigger for the other.
so for me, pg's start at 6'0" and sg's at 6'5" (6'5" is the really far low end of sgs, but i'd ever hardly call a 6'5" guy anything else)
by my standards, he's a combo guard at 6'4". if you want to call him a sg that's fine with me too. but i still think he's a tweener for a sg. vertical height + playing style are the two factors i use in gauging whether someone is a tweener. mostly vertical height though. i mean, leon powe really doesn't play the 3, he's just a 4 in a short body. he'll always be called a tweener, not because he plays between the 3 and 4, but 99% because he is small at the position vertically.

Not sure what you mean you play big or you don't. You play big for reason. Length and athleticism being the prime reason. Length doesn't matter? Unless you just started watching the game find me a list of great players with a negative THI. The only thing a negative THI helps you do is shoot the basketball. The most common attribute of great players is length. Yeah Bennett has issues but this isn't the 2003 draft. I could say those same things about Zach Randolph and they be true. He still would be the best player in this draft.

i didn't mean it literally. i'm not saying you can have zero length and run around with trex arms dominating the boards. the majority of quality bigs will have wingspans within normal limits or slightly longer. but longer wingspans does not predict success.

right. great players have great length. a majority of them also aren't undersized vertically. when i see a player who is good at the 4 or 5, i don't attribute all of their success to their length. or half. or even a quarter. it's more than that. plenty of guys have amazing wingspans. not all of them pan out.

i think if you made lists of guys and their wingspans, and grouped them into appropriate positional height vs undersized, or even subgrouped them into short wing span vs regular wing span vs great wing span for that position, i don't think you'd find THI to be an accurate predictor of success when comparing any of the groups against each other.

[ManualRam]

In the lotto? Zero risk.

Biggest upside in this draft and his floor is around Al Harrington, as someone said.

i'd say harrington is closer to his ceiling than his floor

I wouldn't say Harrington is his ceiling because Al is very perimeter oriented and more a stretch 4 than anything else. Bennett has a better inside the arch game than Al Harrington.

bennett is very perimeter oriented and i think he'll be a stretch/face up 4 too. he thinks he's a SF, shying away from contact and the dirty work.

[KembaWalker]

the best way to play post defense is to not let a guy get positioned where he wants to. doesnt matter how long you are if you are put in a spot where your opponent has practiced thousands of hookshots. he will hook it over you all day. Bennett if coached up right and motivated could be at least a decent defender just by leveraging his low center of gravity. taller bigs should not really be able to move him very easily even if they weigh more. he just has to be alert and be ready to fight for positioning. not saying that will be easy for him either though given what we've seen.

[Novocaine]

I haven't noticed Bennett shying away from contact. Taking possessions off on defense and not working as much as he should, sure, but not being soft. It was more about consistency. He's long and strong enough to defend at the 4 in the NBA, just needs to be paired with a longer player in the post. Bennett reminds me of pre-injuries David West or Larry Johnson.

[SixerFever215]

I think hes NBA ready right now if it wasnt for his injury there would be more talk about him I love his game athletic can handle the ball can make shots from 10 feet yes hes a little undersized but he has game. Because of his injury i think he will slide in the draft and go 8-11

[ManualRam]

I haven't noticed Bennett shying away from contact. Taking possessions off on defense and not working as much as he should, sure, but not being soft. It was more about consistency. He's long and strong enough to defend at the 4 in the NBA, just needs to be paired with a longer player in the post. Bennett reminds me of pre-injuries David West or Larry Johnson.

he couldve feasted on the interior of college defenses if he was more willing to bang in the post and fight for position. he's not and that shows up everywhere fighting for position is needed.
you don't see him obliterating defenders with picks, moving bodies on the interior, sealing players on either end, consistently boxing out, refusing to be pushed off the block, etc.
IMO his build is deceiving because he doesn't use his body nearly enough.

[richboy]

now we're getting somewhere
this is where we disagree - the definition of a tweener
i absolutely think wade is a tweener. for me, i generally define tweener as someone who is smaller in size relative to conventional standards of that position. being able to play both positions is applicable for calling someone a tweener, but often implies that the player is small for one position while bigger for the other.
so for me, pg's start at 6'0" and sg's at 6'5" (6'5" is the really far low end of sgs, but i'd ever hardly call a 6'5" guy anything else)
by my standards, he's a combo guard at 6'4". if you want to call him a sg that's fine with me too. but i still think he's a tweener for a sg. vertical height + playing style are the two factors i use in gauging whether someone is a tweener. mostly vertical height though. i mean, leon powe really doesn't play the 3, he's just a 4 in a short body. he'll always be called a tweener, not because he plays between the 3 and 4, but 99% because he is small at the position vertically.

Not sure what you mean you play big or you don't. You play big for reason. Length and athleticism being the prime reason. Length doesn't matter? Unless you just started watching the game find me a list of great players with a negative THI. The only thing a negative THI helps you do is shoot the basketball. The most common attribute of great players is length. Yeah Bennett has issues but this isn't the 2003 draft. I could say those same things about Zach Randolph and they be true. He still would be the best player in this draft.

i didn't mean it literally. i'm not saying you can have zero length and run around with trex arms dominating the boards. the majority of quality bigs will have wingspans within normal limits or slightly longer. but longer wingspans does not predict success.

right. great players have great length. a majority of them also aren't undersized vertically. when i see a player who is good at the 4 or 5, i don't attribute all of their success to their length. or half. or even a quarter. it's more than that. plenty of guys have amazing wingspans. not all of them pan out.

i think if you made lists of guys and their wingspans, and grouped them into appropriate positional height vs undersized, or even subgrouped them into short wing span vs regular wing span vs great wing span for that position, i don't think you'd find THI to be an accurate predictor of success when comparing any of the groups against each other.

Nobody said anyone would have success because they have length. The players that have been considered undersized were not really undersized because they had length. That is the point. There is noting saying just because you have long arms you can play in the NBA. You need skills. You need work ethic. You need length in most situations. Point guard is the only position where that hasn't been much of an issue.

The book on Wade back in the day was not big enough to play SG and not really skilled enough to be considered a PG. The idea that Wade was undersized at SG was already flawed because of his incredible length and athleticism. Forget height he is longer and more athletic than most at his position. His smaller size actually helped him. Wade had the foot speed of a PG but the length to play the SG. Pretty much making it impossible for a SG to stay in front of him.

Positional standards change from year to year. Before Michael Jordan it was rare for a SG to be 6'6. Michael Jordan comes around and suddenly every 6'4 SG is a tweener. The elite players at a position end up defining the position. Shaq came around and suddenly Tim Duncan size players weren't big enough to play center. Tim Duncan and KG come a long and years later people think you need crazy size to even play PF. The circumstances around the league dictate who can play where. Chris Bosh and Kevin Garnett suddenly viable centers against most teams. That wouldn't have been the case in the 90s.

Sometimes being undersized can even perform as an advantage if you still have enough length to perform the duties of your position. Like I said before. Ben Wallace had the feet of a SF but the length of a PF or Center. He could do things on defense that very few bigs could do in the history of this league.If Bennett can rebound his position he can play PF. If he can't rebound his position he will be a bust because his skills are not special at the SF spot. He isn't a tweener because he has no shot at being a SF. It will all be about the PF spot with him. If he can hold his position on the glass a coach will play him. Then his advantage in terms of foot speed and perimeter game comes into effect. If he can't he be out of the league.

[richboy]

i'd say harrington is closer to his ceiling than his floor

I wouldn't say Harrington is his ceiling because Al is very perimeter oriented and more a stretch 4 than anything else. Bennett has a better inside the arch game than Al Harrington.

bennett is very perimeter oriented and i think he'll be a stretch/face up 4 too. he thinks he's a SF, shying away from contact and the dirty work.

Based on what? He went to the free throw line at a good rate. He grabbed rebounds and took less than 3 3 pointers a game.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5w2T6yqPRk[/youtube]

Perimeter oriented? Your just saying what you think he be at the NBA level. Nothing in college suggest all he wants to do is launch 3 pointers.