I looked before my time, 63-64 Knicks and the Royals in 59-60, the Bullets of 53-54 and Providence of 48-49. Also the Chicago Packers followed by the Chicago Zephyrs in 61-62. I've never heard of either of those Chicago franchises so I'm not sure if they are same one.
It is rough!! 3rd pick is a disastrous position to be in IMHO. Of the top 3 (as currently ranked) only Jabari Smith works with defenceless Jalen Green and "lack of athleticism shot blocking" Sengun. Banchero and Chet = trade Sengun, and Smith is highly likely to go 1st. So IF we go 3rd, we should seriously consider taking Ivey or Davis(or getting pennies on the dollar for Sengun). However, taking a guard = a poor return on Green/ KPjr I honestly feel like if we don't get Smith, we are better off picking 6th and getting a face up forward... Having said that, I see Smith as a face up stretch 4, so am heavily in favour of tanking for a "worst 3" record. Puh-lease let us trade Wood and Gordon and be stuck with rookies developing over the back end of the season!
Chet is like a shorter, lighter Manute Bol - with a face up driving game which may or not be useful in the NBA.... For me he is a HARD pass. He might eventually be an all-star, I could care less, good luck to him. I don't want to take the risk on the skinniest player in NBA history.... (may or may not be skinniest) But seriously, LIGHTER than Manute Bol.
Agree with all except Banchero/Chet = trade Sengun Sengun works better with both Paolo and Chet than Green does IMO. Because Banchero and Green are too similar in that both are score first players who absolutely must have ball to be succesful. Chet is an off ball player and a great rim protector but his rail thin frame (plus Green's) makes him susceptible to getting steam rolled by stronger opposing players. But unlike Green, he has length to recover if beaten. And Chet already plays much more physically than Green ever did in the paint. That said would be reluctant to trade Wood, even EGo, until after draft. Options are important even on this abomination of a team. Unless Wood trade brings back a legit 7 footer like Myles Turner.
Manute was far skinnier than Chet, as impossible to believe as that may be. Manute was 7'7" and added about 30 pounds of weight to be around 225-230. So... he started around 195-200. So, he was around half-a-foot taller than Chet and weighed about the same as Chet does now, apparently, when he started out. That's insanely skinny. lol. The plus side of that is that even around 30-40 years ago, they managed to put 30 lbs of weight onto Manute. There's hope for Jalen and Chet.
Manute Bol never had the motor, offensive skills or IQ of Chet. Chet is a better more efficient 3 level shooter than most of guards already on the Rockets. Chet is double double machine as well as one of best shot blockers in NCAA. And remind me when Manute ever shot 40% from 3. Banchero WISHES he had Chet's 3ball. And Manute was never as mobile, never much of a passer or ball handler, nor could he show and go from the arc and finish in traffic. And Chet is excellent in transition, with or without the ball. And Chet is more aggressive and higher IQ defender than Banchero. He actually takes pride and puts effort on D. Instead of Manute Bol, the more accurate NBA comparison for Chet Homgren is a thinner Kristaps Porzingas.
In the 60's and 70's you didn't have the frequency of the kind of injuries you have today. it was a different sport. You can't compare 60's basketball with the modern super athletic game. Just ridiculous.
That's for the laugh. You might want to watch some old clips. Here's an old NBA finals - can you watch this and tell me how these players look like they are at more risk for injury? Or can we end this dumb debate?
Weren't you the one who invited discussion on this topic but now saying cannot compare different eras?
Exactly, you can't talk about thin players getting injured from the pre-modern era, that was my point, and I showed you a clip why. Jordan and the Bad Boys aren't pre-modern. I think you are arguing with yourself here.
My point is that super tall skinny players don't have a great track record even when talented. They are highly susceptible to injury. You don't know how Mobley is going to turn out. He could be the next Robinson but there's a sad but good chance he might be the next Ralph Sampson.
Way to move the goal posts man. Your first post on topic was about career ending leg injuries for thin 7 footers and YOU listed as YOUR examples Ralph, Bowie, Oden, Yao. NONE of those players YOU listed played in the prehistoric era of NBA where mostly white guys ran around GLUED to the court.
You can get defense other ways besides a top pick…. We may not even have Green or Sengun at the end of their rookie contracts.
Dude you brought up the prehistoric guys, not me. I said you can't even bother with them because it was a different game. Geez, come on man, go back and read it this is wasting time.
Which prehistoric guys did I bring up? Show me. And FYI, today's NBA is very different game AND nowhere as physical as the 80's and 90's and even 2000's.
In the 70's/80's there were plenty of athletic players who were just as athletic as players today. Dr. J/Connie Hawkins//Kenon/Gervin/Willoughby/Roger Brown Dominuque/MJ/Drexler/Worthy/Cooper etc.... The game was more of a halfcourt and much more physical.
