Seismic Shift in the East: Thomas Bryant a Wizard

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

IMO, Thomas Bryant has a shot to be an extremely good NBA player. As well, I do not agree that he is "years away," as someone posted yesterday in the SL thread. Here's why I think so.

Lets compare him to Jarrett Allen for a moment. After the draft last year, a lot of people thought Jarrett Allen was "years away." Now, for context, Allen is 9 months younger than Bryant. He came out after his Freshman year & went #22. Bryant came out after his Sophomore year & went #42 in the same draft.

But, if you look at the two guys' numbers as Freshmen (Bryant in '15-16, Allen in '16-17) they are virtually identical in most ways. Rebounding, blocked shots, assists, steals & turnovers -- all very close.

But, they were not similar either in scoring or in fouls.

Bryant was by far a better scorer than Allen. He scored 21 points per 40 minutes at an amazing .701 TS%.

Allen fouled a lot less, however -- 2.6 per 40 minutes vs. Bryant's 5.

Overall, factoring in scoring & fouls, Thomas Bryant had meaningfully better numbers than Jarrett Allen. But, Allen played in a tougher conference. Still, I think that if Bryant had come out in 2016, after his Freshman year, he might well have been a lottery pick.

Bryant's Sophomore numbers went down some -- almost entirely b/c his scoring efficiency declined. But -- & this is important -- both his 3 pt. % (.383) & his FT % (.730) actually went up. & they were extremely good -- esp. for a pure Center like Bryant.

What happened was that Bryant's 2 pt. % went down to .519 (still not bad), reflecting the fact that he added more variety to his offense (i.e. he started shooting more jump shots). His TS% went down from .701 to a mere .601. That's as a Sophomore. & it's still very good.

For comparison, Mo Wagner posted .619 as a Junior. Omari Spellman was at .588 as a Freshman. Robert Williams was at .570 as a Freshman & .614 as a Sophomore.

IMO, this kid has a shot to be an extremely good NBA player. Before saying "he can't do this" & "he doesn't do that," you might want to think about all the bigs that passed through here, or whom we passed on in R2 or never took seriously at all b/c they went undrafted -- & who went on to be very successful in the league. Khem Birch might be the poster boy, but the league is full of them.

Guys do need to come out after their freshman year if they want to get drafted higher. The NBA draft is heavily biased towards taking freshmen.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The Lakers were high on Thomas Bryant but Moritz Wagner looks outstanding in summer league

Et tu, CCJ?

So far in 5 SL games, Moritz Wagner has gone 22 for 62. He's shooting 35%

So far in 2 SL games, Thomas Bryant has gone 11 for 17. He's shooting 65%

In fairness, Moritz Wagner has rebounded well -- beginning w/ his 3d SL game.

I don't doubt that Moritz Wagner will be an NBA player.

I think summer league favors the up-and-down athlete and it's not really a structured kind of game. I believe that Mo Wagner might do better in the regular season coming off of screens and hopefully being set up by plays that give him an open looks. Right now he is missing a lot of jump shots

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

The issue with Thomas Bryant isn't his size. Honestly, being a little lighter helps more than it hurts. He just doesn't see the game fast enough and isn't skilled enough by NBA standards. I hope he turns out, and he still might, but even if he does turn out, we're talking maybe 10th man or something.

You know... I'm sure you didn't mean to be dismissive of a player you probably haven't seen that much of. I'm sure you didn't mean to hint that Bryant is "dumb" by saying that he "doesn't see the game fast enough." But, that's how your post came across to me.

As you can tell, this kind of thing ticks me off. That's on me, & I'm not looking to accuse anyone of anything. But, I am sensitive -- no doubt too sensitive -- to any language that hints that a big black kid is "dumb" ("...doesn't see the game fast enough...") I'm sure you meant nothing of the kind.

I can't help wondering how well you know Bryant as a player. How much you've watched him. I wonder whether, right now w/o looking it up, you can say where he played his college ball. Maybe you can, but it would be no surprise if you couldn't.

I wonder about that, because you are pronouncing not just on the few minutes you have seen Thomas Bryant play for us in SL but on the guy altogether -- & in an unabashedly final way too! He doesn't this & he isn't that. & he can maybe be a 10th man....

In fact, I wonder what anyone could possibly know -- about Bryant or even about basketball -- that would qualify anyone to make pronouncements of this kind about a kid whom it would be very very unlikely any of us have seen play much?

Personally, from my exposure to Bryant, which like yours is reasonably limited -- although, aside from watching Bryant in our two games, I've also spent the time to review as much G League footage as possible (in fairness you do mostly see a guy's highlights, which in Bryant's case were considerable, as he played extremely well in a lot of G League minutes last year), looked closely at his G League numbers, & both examined his numbers in college & also analyzed them against comparables -- I see a very different player from the one you see.

Now, I certainly don't see enough to pronounce on him definitively the way you did. But, nothing in all the time I've spent on him tells me that Bryant "just doesn't see the game fast enough." Nor does anything I see indicate that "he isn't skilled enough by NBA standards." Not beyond what you'd expect to see in a kid his age.

In fact, I'd say his court awareness is very good; his feel for the game is solid. He moves well & knows where to move too.

Moreover, Bryant seems to have understood what skills he's going to need to enhance -- that's why, for example, his 3pt. % shots went up rapidly as a Sophomore & was good in the G League as well.

Now, the G League isn't the NBA, obviously. But, it's the next best thing. & Thomas Bryant absolutely killed it last year in the G League. At this point, he's a slightly below average rebounder. Otherwise his production was fantastic.

In short, Thomas Bryan is a very promising young player indeed.

Note that Moritz Wagner & Thomas Bryant entered college the same year & both played a lot of minutes as Sophomores. Bryant came out last year, but Wagner went back to school. Have you compared their numbers as Sophomores in 2016-17? If so, what did you see?

But Wagner really helped himself with a strong NCAA tournament run on a surprising Michigan team.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

It sounds like the Lakers were pretty high on Thomas Bryant and were figuring him into their longterm plans, at least until the Lebron signing obviously accelerated their timeline. From earlier this summer:

Rob Pelinka on Thomas Bryant.

In particular with Thomas Bryant, we all know the game is about shooting bigs. It was just stretch fours at one point, now you’ve got to have stretch fours and stretch fives, and Thomas Bryant is a seven-foot stretch five. Gunnar Peterson and our weight staff have done an unbelievable job just getting him locked in to being an ‘NBA strong’ player. His body fat went way down under 10 percent, he’s eating clean and you can just see the wiry, strong way he’s growing into his body.”

He’s just an unbelievable, almost intoxicating 3-point shooter from the top of the key. It’s almost automatic. As he grows into his body and the pace of the NBA game you can see Lonzo coming off that high ball screen, you can see Kuz in the space that Thomas Bryant will open up for our cutters and our slashers. We do feel like he’s going to be a big piece of the future and how we want to play, and how we want to build this.”

LA was suddenly forced to cut him to clear capspace, and honestly it sounds like the Wizards were pretty lucky to find a young prospect (he's only 20 !) like Bryant available on the waiver wire. Players like this are exactly why we needed the DC GoGo - bring him in and develop him patiently. By midseason he could be getting spot minutes on the big club

What Pelinka says sounds more like the Thomas Bryant I've seen in video, live play, & numbers.

Bryant played 1300 G League minutes last year, & overall he was just tremendous. He posted a .678 TS% on almost 26 points per 40 minutes. 2 blocks & 2.8 assists per 40 minutes. He didn't foul much or turn it over much. The only sub-par note was 9.8 boards per 40 minutes.

If he posted those G League numbers in the NBA (which -- of course! -- I'm not saying he would have, will, or can), he'd be one of the top Centers in the league.

Thomas Bryant is still 20 years old. Barring injury and/or personal problems, he looks like a prospect for a long NBA career, perhaps much of it as a starter.

Much as I love to hate Ernie Grunfeld I think he did a pretty good job getting Thomas Bryant

Sent from my LG-TP260 using RealGM mobile app

[NatP4]

A handful of posters have been watching and posting about the games in the summer league thread, all concluding that Bryant is very poor defensively, this is the same thing that lakers fans were saying. If you watch the games, it’s pretty obvious he’s not a good defender.

But you can believe PIF who literally pays no attention whatsoever to the defensive side of the ball and just called another poster racist for claiming that Bryant has a poor feel for the game defensively (which he does) all because he has a nice TS% from the g league last year.

Your choice!

Huh? I don't think anybody (including me) said he was a good defender. I was impressed by his hands and touch on offense. I did say he has potential to get better because he has great length, but he doesn't seem to be as concerned with that side of the floor as he is with the offensive side.

That’s what I just said.

[DCZards]

I haven't seen much of the first two SL games. But I liked what I did see of Bryant in the second game...at least on offense. I can't speak to Bryant's footspeed, motor or his ability to become at least an average defensive player.

But I do agree with PIF who a few days ago suggested that the Zards should display some patience and try to develop Bryant, especially given his size, length, youth, three pt shooting touch and other obvious attributes.

[I_Like_Dirt]

You know... I'm sure you didn't mean to be dismissive of a player you probably haven't seen that much of. I'm sure you didn't mean to hint that Bryant is "dumb" by saying that he "doesn't see the game fast enough." But, that's how your post came across to me.

...yes, I put the words "by NBA standards" in there to be totally dismissive and imply that he's dumb. What a nice conclusion you jumped to there.

The point here is that the speed of the game matters and that's where Bryant has had problems. He's not alone. There are lots of players who try to make the NBA and very few succeed. Bryant moves well and has some skill, but he doesn't have the elite level read/react that is basically mandatory in the modern NBA. He could have it in the future, but he has a rather small window to develop there, because if he develops it in his late 20s or early 30s, which is still young with respect to life, it's going to be too late for his NBA career. But hey jump to conclusions, get offended if that's your thing.

Edit:

I know the draw of jumping on the guy picked off of waivers who is coming in as the underdog, but you really should join me on the Troy Brown hype train. It was pretty empty until summer league started, and even with summer league it's more quieted the complaints than converted too many believers just yet.

Count me among those who disagree with the conventional wisdom that being lighter help. The very first basketball game I ever went to my dad took me to was in 1972. My dad took me to see West Unser and the bullets. Wes was so fat that when he threw an outlet pass I can see the fat jiggle. Hall of Famer West unsell

It's different times, though. Steve Kerr wasn't wrong when he pointed out how much better the conditioning has gotten in the modern NBA. Unseld was incredibly skilled, but if he didn't shape up, his career would never have gotten off the ground. That isn't to say he wouldn't have shaped up given the advantage of modern training and such, but there's just no comparison.

Pick a sport and it's patently obvious. Watch Babe Ruth waddle around the base paths and tell me with a straight face he would thrive in the modern game as he was. The Oilers with some of the greatest of all time in Gretzky, Messier and a host of others revolutionized hockey, and if you watch those games from back then, and then watch a game from today, the speed of everything is just ridiculously different. Even golfers have revolutionized their workout regimens dramatically. There has been a quiet revolution in athletic training and conditioning over the past few decades. Not all sports had it happen at the same time, but it's hit every sport now.

Basketball is no exception. People look at pure minutes played and think the old guys were in better shape, but no, the pure effort to be on the floor in the modern NBA is far more excruciating, and if you try to take it too easy, you get exploited and your team winds up behind by 30. That's where bigs are being phased out of the game now. It isn't because they're not skilled or because being tall or strong isn't an advantage, all other things being equal; it's because it's tougher to develop that kind of conditioning as a taller player due to increased pressure on your joints and you wind up being left behind. And given how many bigs historically (and currently, even) haven't been as committed to the game as much as some of the shorter players, those guys are being phased out of the league slowly but surely. Not a knock on them because to make the NBA is extremely competitive and takes a massive toll on your body. It's just how things have moved. You mentioned Shaq in a different post and Shaq was basically superhuman. If you can get another player as big and quick as him, great, and even he struggled with conditioning and had to take regular seasons off and his health started crumbling towards the end of his career.

[NatP4]

He only needs to be averageish on defense. Bobby Portis would be a good player if he was anywhere close to average on that end. Bryant has the scoring ability, decent rebounding, some playmaking ability.

[80sballboy]

A handful of posters have been watching and posting about the games in the summer league thread, all concluding that Bryant is very poor defensively, this is the same thing that lakers fans were saying. If you watch the games, it’s pretty obvious he’s not a good defender.

But you can believe PIF who literally pays no attention whatsoever to the defensive side of the ball and just called another poster racist for claiming that Bryant has a poor feel for the game defensively (which he does) all because he has a nice TS% from the g league last year.

Your choice!

Huh? I don't think anybody (including me) said he was a good defender. I was impressed by his hands and touch on offense. I did say he has potential to get better because he has great length, but he doesn't seem to be as concerned with that side of the floor as he is with the offensive side.

That’s what I just said.

Damn, have to get my eyes checked again.

[gtn130]

He only needs to be averageish on defense. Bobby Portis would be a good player if he was anywhere close to average on that end. Bryant has the scoring ability, decent rebounding, some playmaking ability.

If he winds up being an 'average' defensive 5 who shoots 3s then that would be the biggest victory *by far* in the EG era. That would render him a top 10 player at his position and worthy of a huge salary. Being an 'average' defensive big implies that you're competent at playing defense, so it would be a big achievement if Bryant gets there.

Mediocre/bad defensive bigs aren't really worth much. The exceptions that come to mind are KAT and Jokic who are transcendent offensive players, and even still, KAT has been a disappointment. Jusuf Nurkic for example is a good offensive big and is completely unplayable in the postseason. Hassan Whiteside isn't playable even in the regular season at this stage.

All that being said, Bryant having some decent offensive tools means basically zero to me. If he doesn't have decent defensive upside then his value is already capped. There's no reason to play a traditional big in terms of size/length if his main contribution is on the offensive end and he's getting run off the floor on pnr on the other end.

[NatP4]

He only needs to be averageish on defense. Bobby Portis would be a good player if he was anywhere close to average on that end. Bryant has the scoring ability, decent rebounding, some playmaking ability.

If he winds up being an 'average' defensive 5 who shoots 3s then that would be the biggest victory *by far* in the EG era. That would render him a top 10 player at his position and worthy of a huge salary. Being an 'average' defensive big implies that you're competent at playing defense, so it would be a big achievement if Bryant gets there.

Mediocre/bad defensive bigs aren't really worth much. The exceptions that come to mind are KAT and Jokic who are transcendent offensive players, and even still, KAT has been a disappointment. Jusuf Nurkic for example is a good offensive big and is completely unplayable in the postseason. Hassan Whiteside isn't playable even in the regular season at this stage.

All that being said, Bryant having some decent offensive tools means basically zero to me. If he doesn't have decent defensive upside then his value is already capped. There's no reason to play a traditional big in terms of size/length if his main contribution is on the offensive end and he's getting run off the floor on pnr on the other end.

I totally agree with you, Besides the “top 10 player at his position” part. Maybe, but we haven’t even seen him play in the NBA yet, who knows how his offensive abilities translate? He was horrible in 15 appearences for the lakers last year.

I’ll be watching the game today, as will ballboy I’m sure, but so far, I wouldn’t say he has a plus motor, IQ, or athletic ability on the defensive end, and you need atleast one of those traits to be a plus in order to not be horrendous on that end.

[80sballboy]

He only needs to be averageish on defense. Bobby Portis would be a good player if he was anywhere close to average on that end. Bryant has the scoring ability, decent rebounding, some playmaking ability.

If he winds up being an 'average' defensive 5 who shoots 3s then that would be the biggest victory *by far* in the EG era. That would render him a top 10 player at his position and worthy of a huge salary. Being an 'average' defensive big implies that you're competent at playing defense, so it would be a big achievement if Bryant gets there.

Mediocre/bad defensive bigs aren't really worth much. The exceptions that come to mind are KAT and Jokic who are transcendent offensive players, and even still, KAT has been a disappointment. Jusuf Nurkic for example is a good offensive big and is completely unplayable in the postseason. Hassan Whiteside isn't playable even in the regular season at this stage.

All that being said, Bryant having some decent offensive tools means basically zero to me. If he doesn't have decent defensive upside then his value is already capped. There's no reason to play a traditional big in terms of size/length if his main contribution is on the offensive end and he's getting run off the floor on pnr on the other end.

I totally agree with you, Besides the “top 10 player at his position” part. Maybe, but we haven’t even seen him play in the NBA yet, who knows how his offensive abilities translate? He was horrible in 15 appearences for the lakers last year.

I’ll be watching the game today, as will ballboy I’m sure, but so far, I wouldn’t say he has a plus motor, IQ, or athletic ability on the defensive end, and you need atleast one of those traits to be a plus in order to not be horrendous on that end.

I won't be watching it live. On DVR probably around 8pmET so I'll probably not attempt to check the score out or read Twitter so I can be somewhat objective about it.

[payitforward]

You know... I'm sure you didn't mean to be dismissive of a player you probably haven't seen that much of. I'm sure you didn't mean to hint that Bryant is "dumb" by saying that he "doesn't see the game fast enough." But, that's how your post came across to me.

...yes, I put the words "by NBA standards" in there to be totally dismissive and imply that he's dumb. What a nice conclusion you jumped to there....

Sorry, man -- I really did NOT think you meant that. Seems like I wasn't clear enough, however. My bad.

[payitforward]

The.. speed of the game matters and that's where Bryant has had problems. He's not alone. There are lots of players who try to make the NBA and very few succeed. Bryant moves well and has some skill, but he doesn't have the elite level read/react that is basically mandatory in the modern NBA. ...

Humbug. How much of Thomas Bryant had you seen when you wrote the above? How do you know what his "read/react" level is? From the 2 SL games you'd seen when you wrote the above? How much of him did you see at Indiana? In the G League? You see problems that Rob Pelinka just doesn't have the ability to pick out?

Players are as good as the numbers they put up. Period. They are as good as their ability to score efficiently (the more they can do that the better), rebound compared to other guys at their position, & so forth. At the end of a game, we don't compare read/react times & give the victory to the team whose players do that a more "elite" level. We just look at the scoreboard, where the numbers were created by the players' ability to do what I just described.

For any player, of course, the only numbers we have that tell us how he does that stuff are recorded against the competition he actually saw. Last year, in those ways, Bryant was a dominant player in the G League -- not "good" but dominant. He'll have to demonstrate that he can do well in the NBA too.

I know the draw of jumping on the guy picked off of waivers who is coming in as the underdog, but you really should join me on the Troy Brown hype train. It was pretty empty until summer league started, and even with summer league it's more quieted the complaints than converted too many believers just yet.

?? The 2 guys have nothing to do with one another.

Bryant is not the usual "guy picked off waivers." He is not someone who couldn't make it on the Lakers. He got caught in a numbers game & especially in a complete shift of direction of the team.

Brown is a very talented player -- as you'd expect from a guy picked #15 in the draft. All the same, what he mostly demonstrated in SL was how much development he still needs to have! Nor was it hard to see where his athletic challenges will be.

Count me among those who disagree with the conventional wisdom that being lighter help. The very first basketball game I ever went to my dad took me to was in 1972. My dad took me to see West Unser and the bullets. Wes was so fat that when he threw an outlet pass I can see the fat jiggle. Hall of Famer West unsell

It's different times, though. Steve Kerr wasn't wrong when he pointed out how much better the conditioning has gotten in the modern NBA. Unseld was incredibly skilled, but if he didn't shape up, his career would never have gotten off the ground. That isn't to say he wouldn't have shaped up given the advantage of modern training and such, but there's just no comparison.

Pick a sport and it's patently obvious. Watch Babe Ruth waddle around the base paths and tell me with a straight face he would thrive in the modern game as he was. The Oilers with some of the greatest of all time in Gretzky, Messier and a host of others revolutionized hockey, and if you watch those games from back then, and then watch a game from today, the speed of everything is just ridiculously different. Even golfers have revolutionized their workout regimens dramatically. There has been a quiet revolution in athletic training and conditioning over the past few decades. Not all sports had it happen at the same time, but it's hit every sport now.

Basketball is no exception. People look at pure minutes played and think the old guys were in better shape, but no, the pure effort to be on the floor in the modern NBA is far more excruciating, and if you try to take it too easy, you get exploited and your team winds up behind by 30. That's where bigs are being phased out of the game now. It isn't because they're not skilled or because being tall or strong isn't an advantage, all other things being equal; it's because it's tougher to develop that kind of conditioning as a taller player due to increased pressure on your joints and you wind up being left behind. And given how many bigs historically (and currently, even) haven't been as committed to the game as much as some of the shorter players, those guys are being phased out of the league slowly but surely. Not a knock on them because to make the NBA is extremely competitive and takes a massive toll on your body. It's just how things have moved. You mentioned Shaq in a different post and Shaq was basically superhuman. If you can get another player as big and quick as him, great, and even he struggled with conditioning and had to take regular seasons off and his health started crumbling towards the end of his career.

Bigs are being phased out of the game? Really? Is that a scalable phenomenon? If guys who are 6'9" are quicker & better conditioned than guys who are 6'11" then I guess guys who are 6'7" are quicker & better conditioned than guys who are 6'9". Meaning that guys who are 6'5"... you get my point.

Things change all the time. Then they change again. Pretty soon they change to a way they were some previous time. Every fad looks like a revolution powered by an ineluctable set of previously undiscovered facts.

What's' the average height of an NBA player these days? Is it taller or shorter than 10 years ago? How about 20 years ago?

[dangermouse]

Devin Robinson looked great, so did TB Jnr, but Bryant was a big surprise for me. He's further along than I thought. A development guy but one who could actually pan out to be a good rotation big.

[payitforward]

Thomas Bryant is a feel-good story. He fell into our laps. He looked good in (meaningless) SL. He seems to have a fair amount of promise. All good stuff -- & especially for a team like the Wizards that is obviously short of young talent & certainly needed a young big.

For that matter, Troy Brown is another feel-good story. &, in snatches -- & especially as a shooter -- Devin Robinson has been a feel-good story too.

The first two guys are on the team. If Robinson were to make the team as well, it would be the first time since 2011 that we had 3 rookies on our roster (well... Robinson wouldn't really be a rookie -- he played 13 minutes last year. Close enough all the same!).

To me at least, that would be quite a positive sign. It would be more significant -- more of a positive indication for our future -- than signing Jeff Green for a rental year or acquiring an expiring player like Rivers who is a proven below average player. Almost certainly more significant -- again, for our future -- than signing Dwight Howard who will be joining his 6th team in the last 8 years.

Still, it's obvious that no one can know how well Thomas Bryant will turn out, how good an NBA player he'll be. It's too early. I Like Dirt might be totally correct. But, I'm pulling for him!

[NatP4]

Dwight didn’t even play for the nets, come on.

[DCZards]

Thomas Bryant is a feel-good story. He fell into our laps. He looked good in (meaningless) SL. He seems to have a fair amount of promise. All good stuff -- & especially for a team like the Wizards that is obviously short of young talent & certainly needed a young big.

For that matter, Troy Brown is another feel-good story. &, in snatches -- & especially as a shooter -- Devin Robinson has been a feel-good story too.

The first two guys are on the team. If Robinson were to make the team as well, it would be the first time since 2011 that we had 3 rookies on our roster (well... Robinson wouldn't really be a rookie -- he played 13 minutes last year. Close enough all the same!).

To me at least, that would be quite a positive sign. It would be more significant -- more of a positive indication for our future -- than signing Jeff Green for a rental year or acquiring an expiring player like Rivers who is a proven below average player. Almost certainly more significant -- again, for our future -- than signing Dwight Howard who will be joining his 6th team in the last 8 years.

Still, it's obvious that no one can know how well Thomas Bryant will turn out, how good an NBA player he'll be. It's too early. I Like Dirt might be totally correct. But, I'm pulling for him!

Did Bryant really just fall into our laps or does the Zards FO deserve some credit here? I'm guessing there were other NBA teams who were interested in Bryant but the Zards were on top of the waiver wire situation and beat them to the punch. But I could be wrong about that because I have no idea how that waiver wire stuff works.

It would have been a mistake to not bring in Howard, Rivers and Green, and to rely on Brown, Bryant and Robinson as regular rotation guys. Those youngins' ain't ready for that role. Maybe in a year or two...but not yet.

[nate33]

It would have been a mistake to not bring in Howard, Rivers and Green, and to rely on Brown, Bryant and Robinson as regular rotation guys. Those youngins' ain't ready for that role. Maybe in a year or two...but not yet.

Agreed. Watching in summer league, I'm not convinced that Brown and Robinson are ready for anything more than garbage time in the NBA. Brown has a lot of NBA potential, but must develop a shot and a left hand or he'll quickly be Scouting Reported out of any useful role. Robinson was pretty good, but he's 23 years old among a bunch of 20 and 21 year-olds yet still didn't rebound well.

Of the 3, I think Bryant looks the most capable of being useful in the league this season. I wouldn't want him starting or anything, but he might be able to handle the role of a backup center almost immediately. He'd surely make plenty of rookie mistakes, but he seems to have a fully developed set of tools (low post play, perimeter shot, size, length, mobility, willingness to defend) that would allow him to compete with NBA vets right away.

[payitforward]

Thomas Bryant is a feel-good story. He fell into our laps....

Did Bryant really just fall into our laps or does the Zards FO deserve some credit here?

Absolutely! I only meant that Bryant became available out of the blue. Good for Ernie for signing him.

It would have been a mistake to not bring in Howard, Rivers and Green, and to rely on Brown, Bryant and Robinson as regular rotation guys. Those youngins' ain't ready for that role. Maybe in a year or two...but not yet.

Oh no... no one in his right mind would project those 3 as rotation players w/ enough certainty to rely on them!

Bryant maybe, for some minutes.

Brown showed some promise in SL, but he certainly did not play well! Far from it. He shot poorly, turned the ball over a lot, etc. But... he's 18.

Robinson did play well, but SL would not be a reason to pencil him into the rotation.

Bringing in Howard was risky but worth the risk. We didn't "bring in" Rivers -- he was all we could get for Gortat. & Green is just this year's version of Mike Scott. Guys don't turn into veteran minimum rent-a-players because they are good.

He's local, & you like him, so you ascribe virtues to him aside from his play: fine. I hope he's all that and more, but... he ain't going to be. After all, last year it was Mike Scott who people thought was a terrific addition -- who knows why?