1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

athleticism vs fundamentals: which is more successful?

Discussion in 'NBA Dish' started by Charvo, Mar 9, 2004.

Tags:
Page 4 of 4
  1. Puedlfor

    Puedlfor Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2000
    Messages:
    5,973
    Likes Received:
    21
    Neither are succesful without the other. The notion that ANYONE gets into the NBA without substantial physical tools is so divorced from reality that it barely merits mentioning.

    People mention John Stockton as a prime example for fundamentals over athleticisim, without mentioning his supreme hand-eye coordination, his quickness, or his ability to run flat out for 40-some odd minutes without breaking a sweat.

    NBA GM's looked at athletes over fundamentals for the simple fact that players who were fundamentally sounds were probably as good as they were ever going to get - but for players who were incredible athletes - the sky is the limit. And you only have to get lucky once to get a superstar.

    Players can succeed in the NBA without being great athletes, Matt Bullard for example never impressed anyone with his athletic ability; and players can succeed without being great fundamentals guys - Darius Miles will likely have a long career in the league. But these guys are bit players, a dime a dozen.

    Look around the NBA and you cannot find one team that's even average that doesn't rest it's hopes, future or present, on a player who is at the top of the game in both athleticism and fundamental basketball.
     
    #61 Puedlfor, Mar 16, 2004
  2. pgabriel

    pgabriel Educated Negro

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    3,709

    We're all sure you waited till the Suns game to make this conclusion.
     
    #62 pgabriel, Mar 16, 2004
  3. Charvo

    Charvo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Before the Suns game, I thought Steve had some fundamentals. If Raul Lopez was on the team besides Steve, the Rockets win that game. Lopez is not athletic compared to the point guards highly touted. He got an ACL tear in Spain. He's smart though. If he could shoot a jumper, he'd be perfect for the Rockets.

    I was watching Kenny Smith last night comment on the Rockets. I could tell he was looking to bash in the Rockets' guard play, but he didn't want to say names. Kenny Smith knows what it takes at the point guard position to win with an inside-out offense. When he talks about the Rockets, he says stuff that is very relevant.
     
    #63 Charvo, Mar 16, 2004
  4. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,914
    Likes Received:
    41,464


    Yes, you certainly touted Steve Blake's fundamentals.
     
    #64 SamFisher, Mar 16, 2004
  5. nyquil82

    nyquil82 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    3
    its just like the other big question:

    Size or technique?

    you need either a lot of one or a bit of both to be successful.
     
    #65 nyquil82, Mar 16, 2004
  6. Charvo

    Charvo Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,861
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blake makes $200,000 a year which in the NBA is the minimum. He's not very athletic. However, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders, and he can actually shoot from outside decently. For what he makes, he would be a great fit on the Rockets. I'm not a proponent of paying a lot of money into the point guard position.
     
    #66 Charvo, Mar 16, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 4 of 4

Share This Page