So Redick is actually quicker than Brewer? Why do we think Brewer will be a lock down defender and Redick a matador? Given that we know Redick is an all-time great level shooter, and the only knock on him was his lack of athleticism, why would anyone not want him when these results show him to be more than passable as an athlete? Unless we need him to play SF, I don't see why Redick would have trouble playing as a shooting guard in the NBA.
Because length and strength are just as important as footspeed in terms of defense. And Redick tested out with the worst wingspan in the camp (he was the only person to measure out with a wingspan shorter than his height without shoes.) and considering that short arms are supposed to help your bench press, Redick's numbers on that front don't look too great either. Now these are just numbers, and they shouldn't preclude what they can do on the court. And Redick testing out better athletically than expected is good for him. But everything is a component in deciding who to draft. Looking at the whole picture in regards to their skills, measurables, play on the court, and historically how guys project to the league, I firmly believe that Brewer is the clear cut choice over Redick.
You guys really should read this article. Okay, fine - here's the text: But Can He Play? Analyzing the NBA Pre-Draft Combine Results Jonathan Givony - President June 17, 2006 He has a 7-6 ¾ wingspan, and a 9-3 ½ standing reach. He jumps out of the gym with a 39 inch vertical, bench presses 185 pounds 24 times and runs a 3.3 in the three quarter court sprint. But can he shoot? Dribble? Catch a rebound? Play? Do we even care? It’s that time once again, our favorite time of the year of course; ten days before the draft when everything logical in regards to analyzing basketball gets flushed down the toilet. Instead we focus on superficial things that have proven again and again to have very little correlation with actual success in the NBA. This player is superior to that player because his standing reach is two inches longer. That guy is a better prospect because he bench pressed 185 pounds 19 times instead of the 8 someone else did. Let’s just forget irrelevant things like how many points and rebounds a player averaged, what kind of drive he has to improve or how many games he helped his team win, because those obviously have no bearing on a player’s success. Who was the top athlete in the 2003 draft? Thinking logically about that draft, you’d probably assume it was a toss up between Dwyane Wade and Lebron James. But in fact, it was 6-2 shooting guard Troy Bell, who did not make it past his rookie contract before being cut by the man who reached badly to draft him in Jerry West. Bell was affectionately nicknamed “Troy Airbell” by ACB Spanish league fans he horrified with the air-balls he jacked up playing for Real Madrid, and has struggled to earn a living playing basketball since. Bell measured a 41 inch vertical leap (which would rank 2nd in this year’s combine), ran a 3.06 in the ¾ court sprint (would rank 1st), and bench pressed the 185 pound bar 17 times (first amongst guards). If Bell were eligible this year, he most likely again would be deemed the top athlete in this year’s draft too. Who was (supposedly) the 2nd best athlete in that draft? Brandon Hunter, an eventual late 2nd round pick who toiled in the CBA this past season before being picked up late in the year by a team in Italy. Dwyane Wade, possibly the best overall athlete in the NBA today, ranked 14th. Chris Bosh finished 51st. Chris Kaman 45th. In that same year, TJ Ford measured in as being slower in the various footspeed tests than Chris Kaman, Kirk Penney and Carmelo Anthony. Huh? Anyone that has ever seen him play would tell you that he is one of the fastest players in the NBA, if not the fastest. In 2004, we found a similar story. Kirk Snyder came out as the top overall athlete, while players like Andre Iguodala, Luol Deng and Al Jefferson’s draft stock supposedly took a hit by measuring out as relatively poor athletes. That same Andre Iguodala who was robbed of the slam dunk championship a few months ago, only recorded a 34 inch vertical leap, one inch more than J.J. Redick this year. Rickey Paulding, Timmy Bowers and Luis Flores were all declared amongst the top 10 athletes in the draft. One struggled to average double figures this past season in France, one starred in the Israeli league, and another is currently playing in the Dominican Republic. The 2005 draft combine was equally as pointless. Monta Ellis ranked as the worst athlete of all the players measured, coming out slow, weak and with very little leaping ability. Once the NBA season started and the ball actually rolled out on the court, though, he magically transformed into a spectacular athlete who can get his shot at will and dunks anything and everything that is remotely close to the basket, despite only being 6-3. Eventual rookie of the year Chris Paul was declared only the 15th best athlete amongst the players tested, and was somehow deemed slower than Deron Williams, Sean May and Wayne Simien. The athletic tests also led you to believe that Andrew Bogut was some kind of stiff who would never be able to keep up with the speed of the NBA--that is, until the players actually started playing basketball and we found out that he is actually a fine athlete for a player his size. This year, we again find some head-scratching results that make us question the validity of the NBA draft combine, and even make us wonder why exactly it’s even held. At the top of the list is Marcus Williams, who is, according to the combine results, one of the most unathletic guards to ever be considered a top 10 pick. We’re talking about a player that played in the best conference in America and got into the lane and created offense for his team almost whenever he pleased against the top defensive guards the NCAA has to offer. All it takes is five minutes watching him on tape or in person to realize that, but the results of the combine would never tell you that. Shawne Williams is supposedly better jumping straight off the ground with no initial step than he is with a running approach, which is somewhat of an odd concept in itself. Patrick O’Bryant, who we watched twice over the past few weeks put on an incredible show of leaping ability and explosiveness, measured out as being slow, stiff and with very little leaping ability. When we last saw him, he was doing 360 Statue of Liberty dunks from a step inside the free throw line, but now all of a sudden he can’t jump? We could go on and on and on. Jonathan Givony, DraftExpress.com The combine results are hardly the Holy Grail in the evaluation process as far as NBA decision makers are concerned from what we are told, but people who did not pay much attention to how players performed during the season seem to place a much larger emphasis on them then they probably should. As one NBA scout told us today “it’s not really something we take into our war room and make decisions off of. It’s more something to glance at and use as another small part of the complicated puzzle that ends up telling you what we’d hope is the entire picture.” The main point we are trying to hammer across here is that there are major concerns about whether or not the tests that are being done on the players at the pre-draft camp are actually transferable to a real basketball setting. The overwhelming amount of possessions in the NBA are played in a half-court set, which means that there really isn’t any valid measurement tool that is being utilized right now to properly evaluate how well a player will actually be able to create a scoring opportunity for himself or his teammate, how well he’ll be able to react defensively on the perimeter or whether or not a player will go out of his area to track down a rebound. Measuring how fast a player gets from the free throw three quarters down the court to the basket is a tool that is very much non-transferable to an actual game setting. Evaluating lane agility speed only tells a small part of how well players are able to actually stay in front of someone on the perimeter. Assessing a player’s height, standing reach or vertical leap tells very little about how likely a player is to box out his man, anticipate where the ball will come off the rim and have the desire and tenacity to go get it. There is more to slashing to the basket than just having an incredibly explosive first step to help a player get by his man. Players like Dwyane Wade and Chris Paul use a wide variety of hesitation moves and quick changes of direction to first get their man off balance and then blow them once they are on their heels. Knowing how and when to slow down and then speed up, change gears and use crafty ball-handling skills simultaneously is what will eventually decide whether or not a player will be successful in creating space to operate. Once they get to the basket, having a 40+ inch vertical leap isn’t enough to actually put the ball in the hoop either. They’ll need to rely on their instincts, feel, touch, and body control to compliment their leaping ability and either get to the free throw line or finish the play. Things like timing and instincts are what make the great athletes truly great basketball players, which is why indicating that one player is somehow superior because he has better pure physical attributes seems like a complete waste of time and money. In the much more scripted and mechanical NFL this may be a valid way to draw some noteworthy conclusions, but the results of the past few combines show that this isn’t the case are far as basketball goes. Some players are naturally incredible athletes, but only a handful of them actually know how to take fully advantage of their athleticism and translate it out on the court. Too many of them are spending their valuable time and resources on testing out well in the outdated evaluations that the NBA looks at during the combine, rather than working on actually becoming better basketball players in their rookie season. The fact that the NBA has decided not to conduct a psychological test at the pre-draft camp to evaluate some key “intangibles” is a bit surprising. Being able to bench press a 185 pound bar 25 times is not going to make the difference in whether or not a player is able to come down with a rebound or come up with a loose ball, but hustle, timing, fundamentals, instincts, footwork, reflexes, tenacity and anticipation skills are. Having a tool at the NBA’s disposal to measure things like work ethic, motivation, leadership skills, coachability, decision making on and off the court, ability to fit in with a team structure, pressure situations and temptation, and other quote unquote “intangibles” would be a much more effective way to properly evaluate a player’s likelihood to succeed in the NBA. If the league is unable to put the top players in a competitive situation where their true basketball ability can really come out, their time and money might be better spent looking at other aspects of a player’s overall makeup to complete the entire picture.
According to combine numbers, Amare Stoudemire is an average athlete and Luke Jackson is a better athlete than Andre Iguodala. How does Redick defend in a game? How is his strength and wingspan? Is LeBron James a better defender than Bruce Brown based on his speed or lane agility? Being a defender is a lot more than numbers.
See these posts? Just read them. The reason why peole REFUSE to accept ANY evidence that shows Redick is not "slow, unathletic and short" is because apparently he is white. That's all that makes sense. It's like all the "yao is soft" arguments. I hate to say it but this is really sounding like that at this point. if he tests faster or quicker than someone it's "but so and so's arms are longer." If he measures taller than someone it's "but like he's not fast he's way slow." If Brewer was held to the same standard Redick is being held to he's be considered a poor man's Ryan Bowen on this forum. People have all the evidence in a variety of diferent forms. All the myths on Redick have been proven false, yet they still are convinced the guy that won 5 of the 6 major college awards (except final four MVP) and also won NCAA COLLIEGATE athlete of the year over Reggie Bush, is just a "slow, unathletic, one-dimensional, journey man spot up shooter, that is short and can't defend his own shadow."
Good read. Like I have said earlier in this thread. If they have put Yao in the 2002 pre-draft combine, he would be last in 'one step vertical jump', last in 'vertical max', last in 'sprint', last in 'Lane Agility'...etc. He would be the worse athlete in every single category. But he is the best player in the draft. So why bother reading the numbers?
Just goes to show, athleticism comes out second to skill every time. What would Hakeem be without all the footwork? What would Jordan have been if he never learned to shoot? What would Bird have been without his skills? Magic? He wasn't a great athlete, just averge. But his skill set was out of this world. J.J. doesn't have the size to be in those guys class. But he's got a great skill set. He is the best shooter to come into the NBA since Ray Allen. If he enters the 3 point contest at the all-star game next year, my money is on him to win the thing, going away. He's got skills baby.
According to the combine numbers, I would have the second highest standing vertical in the draft, if not the highest on a good day. Does that mean I'm better than even ONE person that was there that day? Hell no it doesn't. Play on the court preceeds these measurements. They are simply meant to be supplementary, and to maybe tip the scales one way or another when comparing two guys that are neck and neck in terms of what you see on the court. I like J.J. Redick as a person and as a player, but in no way do I consider him worthy of our #8 pick. Is it that hard to understand that's how most people feel? I really don't think that most people dislike the guy, but rather feel that other players are better suited for our #8 pick. By the way, I'm white.
Why bother reading the numbers? Because they are a piece to the puzzle in evaluating a player. No one drafts exclusively with only the numbers. The stats are just a tool used in combination with appraising a players’ skills/talent, position they play, and other intangibles (mental toughness, what they do when their shot isn't falling, etc...) Which is why when looking at the whole package (stats+ skill appraisal+ intangibles) a lot of us would prefer Brewer over Redick.
I'm not arguing about the numbers or the use of them. My point which is valid and seems many refuse to even consider is that people tend to look at them the wrong way or they tend to value the wrong ones. RocketForever is trying to make the same point. It is obvious the majority of people here value things like arm length, vertical and standing reach above most anything else. Well that's fine, but for every athletic long best like Jordan, Kobe Drexler etc there are hundreds that stunk up the league. Usually the top athletes in the tests are the ones that don't even last 2 years in the league. Yes you use these to seperate players of qual level, but that's the whole point. That IS the point, not the other way around.
I think the combine numbers is like a double edged sword. They can be a piece to the puzzle of player evaluation but they can also mislead teams to make bad draft decisions, like how Jerry West reaching for Troy Bell. I am just saying that I personally won't look at the numbers in order to evaluate draft prospects. I am sorry if you have problem with my own preferred way to do it. And my post has nothing to do with the debate about Brewer and Redick at all.
He tried to dunk it a foot behind the FT line at the dunk contest... came up a lil short and almost broke his leg.
The bizzare thing is that Redick's play on the court was far superior to Brewer's. That is why Redick is the consensus player of the year. Most of the earlier criticism of Redick had nothing to do with his play on the court, it was about how he was not quick or tall enough to compete with NBA shooting guards. That is exactly what these numbers seem to contradict. Apparently getting a few more rebounds makes Brewer a better pick than Redick. Whatever.
First of all, I disagree with your claim of "far superior" play. Far superior shooting, sure. What else? Honest question. Also, you know we're not talking about who was more impressive in college. We're talking about who will likely be better in the NBA based on what we saw in college...it's not the same thing. If we were just going off of college numbers, we'd probably take the guy that put up nearly 27 a game. I mean, if people just wanted to look at scoring output, Adam Morrison would go first and J.J. would go right behind him with Quincy Douby going third. That's not how it works. Nobody is saying J.J. wasn't great in college. There is no denying that. In fact, he was one my favorite players (if not #1) this past season. That doesn't mean I have to want him on the NBA team I root for. Go ahead and tell everyone that they're wrong and you're right. In the end, the truth will play out right before our eyes. No need for people to get hostile over it. (not saying you have, but some people...)
Where did I say I had a problem with your preference? I simply answered a question YOU posted and gave the reason why the numbers are considered by some. As for mentioning Brewer and Redick, ... I used them as an example how many of the posters use the big picture of stats (college numbers, combine), skill appraisal, and intangibles to determine between players. If you didn't like the example ... I have no problem with you coming up with a better one. You can change the players ... but the main point won't suffer.
