Thanks for sharing these. 1. Ingram writes for Hoopsworld, so he can write in detail about what the agents told him if he wants to so do for longer than twitter's character limit. 2. Apparently at least one agent seems to like the Rockets situation for his client: David Falk, who is Austin Rivers' agent. So, perhaps all the agents that Ingram talked to complained about the Rockets, but he probably didn't talk to all of the agents out there. 3. Agents have their own agendas and incentives, and the agenda is not to build good basketball team. Their agenda is to keep their clients happy and land them big contracts. Nothing wrong with this, but it just isn't always compatible with the team's goals and agents don't necessarily make the best judges for what teams are trying to do. 4. I think where the agents are coming from (speculating since Ingram provided no details) is that some of the stuff that the Rockets are not in the interest of their clients. For example: (1) they use the restricted FA leverage when they can, (2) they don't overpay guys or prematurely extend contracts (for guys like Aaron Brooks, (3) they are willing to pursue trades at the cost of "stability" and "chemistry," and (4) they put depth on the roster (duplication means some players don't play as much as they want) rather than fill the 10th-15th spot with Rick Brunson-types. There is some merit to having a stable team with great chemistry and players happy with their roles and their contract situation. However, as Morey said, they can start thinking about fit, chemistry, stability, etc. only after they improve their talent level. Otherwise, a happy and "good chemistry" version of the current team isn't going to be a contender, and locking such a roster into a long term "stable contracts" will only make it harder for the team to make a jump. 5. In the end, if anything is to blame for the Rockets pursuing their current strategy, it's Yao Ming's injury (and McGrady's, too). Had Yao stayed healthy, the Rockets likely would have kept Ron Artest and pursue additions to the core rather than an aggressive high-turnover approach. It's too bad that some agents/players (like Kevin Martin) had to suffer the consequences of the transition strategy, but it's just not something they could have avoided.
Ingram is a dumbass. Morey has this team set up perfectly to rebuild a very good team without a superstar. The only team without a star to give the big teams problems.
Athletic testing results... http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=2012&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&source=NBA%20Draft%20Combine&sort=12
http://twitter.com/DraftExpress/statuses/212559677517602816 Anyway, Barnes apparently tested off the charts (see: http://www.draftexpress.com/article/NBA-Combine-Athletic-Testing-Results-Released-3964/), which is stunning to me. I didn't see that athletic ability at all in the games I watched. The same goes for Marshall. Henson is pretty much the opposite. He looks really athletic, bouncy, yet he tested rather poor. Anyway, I'm not a combine guy. Little, if anything of this matters IMO.
just cuz a player is athletic in raw drills..doesnt mean he uses his athleticism in his game to its full ability. see Chase Budinger: guy can jump out the roof...but does not play athletic at all..plays more like just a jumpshooter
I didnt' even realize Perry Jones registered at 6'11 with shoes. He's got the second highest vertical reach. I can't believe his stock has dropped. Top 5 in sprinting also. Actually, Budinger definitely displays his vertical when he plays. Athleticism involves a wide range of abilities. Jumping high vertically is just one of those possible abilities. He jumps high, but overall, isn't that athletic.
This is your beauty CH. Hilarious, sarcastic posts when everyone else is serious. Completely serious post in response to one that would be better suited for one of your funky replies.
When they were talking about the vertical Chad Ford alluded to Chase Budinger as someone who was off the charts with his athletic testing and still managed to drop based on his gameplay. I would assume anyone who did their homework on Jones III actually watched him play the game of basketball, and shares in the concerns that everyone else considers an issue. These tests are fun, but useless to scouts that have been watching these guys play for years.
There were rumors that players were purposely under measuring (by bending their knees and arms) their standing reach to get better verticals results, and from a look at those test results it looks like it was true.. Because I seriously doubt Harrison Barnes has a near 40 inch max vertical....
Any link to the rumors. I know some of us are speculating here, but I wonder if there are media sources thinking the same. Anyhow, some of these measurements/testing results seem to support the theory: Harrison Barnes is 6'8'' in shoes, has 6'11.25 wingspan'' and has a standing reach of 8'5.5''. Moe Harkless is 6'8.75'' in shoes, 7' wingspan and has 8'6.5'' standing reach. If you look at Draftexpress' database from the last 20 years or so, almost everyone in past years with similar height and wingspan have standing reaches about 3-5 inches longer than these two. Hell, John Wall has the same standing reach as Barnes and he's 6'4'' in shoes with a 6'9'' wingspan. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/John-Wall-1339/ Austin Rivers 6'5'' in shoes, 6'7.25'' wingspan, 8'0.5'' standing reach. This about the same or shorter than the standing reach of Jimmer Fredette, Darren Collison and JJ Redick, each of whom has shorter height and wingspan. http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre...l&sort2=DESC&draft=30&pos=0&source=All&sort=6 These are just some of the examples.
You would think that someone there would be pretty strict overseeing that ... but maybe not. Sucks if that is the case. It's all about the $$.
I realize he's got issues, but have any of them really grown or changed lately? Not really. He's who he was during the season. What really happened is that others have shown more and have climbed up the draft order. I'm just surprised that these numbers didn't seem to help at all. His potential is too great to fall out of the lottery. And i wished they did away with testing players' height with shoes. What's the point? Players just practically wear heels for the measurement to exaggerate it. Unless teams monitor the shoes they'll be wearing throughout their career, there's no point in height-with-shoes measurements.
Leonard is not really like any of those players. He is a big man with solid length and reach. He is an under rated passer and athlete. His problem is that he didn't get a lot of looks from his teammates and his coach had him play on the perimeter. The question mark is whether he will ever play inside and will be willing to bang.
Clutch, your guy John Henson did not test out impressively. What a scrub! 25 inch standing vertical, 30 inch max vertical. Ewwwwwwww. http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/John-Henson-5236/ But apparently he had an ankle injury, which caused him to skip the sprint and lane agility drills. I imagine it wasn't good for his vertical #s, either. Also, the rampant standing reach tanking probably made Henson look worse.
While I was watching these guys over the weekend, I kept wondering if they were measured for height in their socks, they could very easily get a gel inside their socks to give them an inch to inch and a half extra boost. A guy like Austin Rivers or one of the short big men could benefit from an extra inch or so in the measurements.
