Too late. That's the size you do want in an SG. I can't believe that all it took for Portland to get him was cash.
The reporter probably just went off his college profile. It had been updated in 3 years. Here is the pre-draft camp combine results. If you look to the right, he rated 5th best athlete overall. He was the most athletic PF/C. He moves well for a 6'9" 250lb player. He has a 36" max vertical. He is stronger than he looks, with 21 bench press reps, almost double McRobert's 12 reps. He is in good shape, low bodyfat%.
Forgot to mention that the NBA uses measurements with shoes on and they round up for 1/2 inch. So, for example, Turiaf and David Lee measured 6'7.75" without shoes at the previous draft camp. Turiaf and David Lee are 6'9" in shoes. They aren't listed at 6'7"(no shoes), but are listed at 6'9"(with shoes).
Really interesting to compare him in these basic stats to Horford, the #3 pick. Landry is just one inch shorter, period. Otherwise, he's an identical or slightly better athlete/physical freak than Horford. Makes you wonder what his stock would have been like if Florida had recruited him instead of Purdue.
forget Florida, if Landry had gone to Duke like McRoberts he would have had much more of a buzz due to Dick Vitale alone.
Why is Davis not listed? Landy's standing reach does look lower than you would think based on ht and wingspan--for instance Horford measures just 1 inch more w/o shoes but 4.5 highler in reach. I guess Landry has really short arms, but great athlete numbers for a guy over 240--maybe Kenny Thomas is the comparison?. Also Green and him measured the same without shoes, but then Green gains an inch with shoes, what gives?
Glen Davis was originally on the camp roster, but pulled out at the last minute. Players often pull out, if they feel that their draft stock will not be improved by the workout or the measurements. Landry has T-Rex arms. He has the shortest standing reach out of all the PFs, including undersized ones like Lasme. Standard basketball shoe thickness is considered to be 1.25". For whatever reason, his shoes were the thinnest out of everybody. He forgot to replace his cheap wornout shoes? *smile* Notice, Herbert Hill gains 2 inches. Orthotic devices? Special shoe with a 2" heel or lift hidden in it?
Did you read what I put down the first time. I said their three point shooting was similar except the last year when Law outshot Brooks. But my main point was that Law kills him in FG% Freshman Year Law 38.7% Brooks 36.8% Sophomore Year Law 49.3% Brooks 42.9% Junior Year Law 44.8% Brooks 40.6% Senior Year Law 50.0% Brooks 46.0% For the total of Law 46.6% and Brooks for 42.9% I wouldn't call those shooting percentages too similar. Also PPS factors in free throws which skews things a bit. Brooks is a better free throw shooter statistically but didn't get to the line nearly as much as Law. Also you keep saying the difference in A/To isn't significant but it is. Especially when you factor in that Brooks had more options to pass to than did Law. Brooks had 4 other players who averaged in double figures. Law had 3. I don't need to get tapes of Oregon, I watched them. What I saw was a shoot first, frequently out of control point guard who didn't look to distribute. He is mini version of Steve Francis as a point guard with less hops. A guy who often leaves his feet on a drive without knowing what he is going to do when he jumps. There is not a spits worth of difference. A/To is a stat where .2 is significant. That is more than the difference between Mike Bibby and Jameer Nelson last year. I would say that Law needs to improve in this area if he wants to remain a point guard in the NBA, but that is a call out many people have made about his game. Brooks' game is even more lacking in passing and holding on to the ball. Your statement was comparing to the 26th pick. I named the last six picks at 26 and they looked pretty good. With the possible exception of the 2003 draft this is supposed to have been the deepest one in that timeframe so it stands to reason it would be of more value than the other years. In fact if you look at the 2003 draft 24-28 you get: 24 Brian Cook - 15.6 minutes for the Lakers solid contributor in 4th year. Mentioned as a possible trade target for the Rockets. 25 Carlos Delfino - 16.7 minutes for the Detriot Pistons contributor in 3rd season. Recently traded to Toronto where he will get more time and a better chance to contribute. 26 Nbudi Ebi - playing in Europe as previously discussed 27 Kendrick Perkins - 22 year old Center for Celtics probably their starter this season. 28 Leandro Barbosa - 18.1 points in 32.7 minutes for Phoenix Suns. 2.2 A/To ratio in 4th year.
You do realize that Brooks was generally playing SG for Oregon. They had an even shorter Guard in the game who was their 2nd best guard, so that moved Brooks over to 2 guard. And wasn't the entire board wanting to get Steve Francis again if he was available for the mid-level? wouldn't a player that was half of Steve (20-5-5) be a decent pick-up? Why is everyone trying to say we should have gotten the next savior, All-Star, major steal at this pick? To have gotten a real steal (when looking retrospectively) few people would think this is good pick right now, and getting a rotation player at #26 is really. Was this is a deep draft? Potentially, but only in the lottery, after that a lot of players that people thought would stay in dropped out...Hawes. Rush. Cal PF, Buddinger, etc. Those top 15 picks may produce more stars than usual, but after that it will probably be similar or minimally better than most other drafts.
You do realize I watched the games and Tajaun Porter though 5'6" was not the point guard on the team. He played the role of short shooting guard. Brooks was the point on the team. Watch the games again. The whole board may have wanted him, but I didn't. At least not as a point guard. He is a horrible distributor and turns the ball over. Steve Francis should play shooting guard not point guard. No one thought the pick should be a savior, but someone that should have been picked at that level not in the mid 30s. If you look our of the last 6 drafts the 26th pick has been contributing in 5 out of 6 of those drafts. So to expect a contributing player is not unreasonable. Many do not believe that Brooks will be a contributing player. I hope I am wrong, but his a game more suited to shooting guard in a 5'11" body doesn't bode well. Plus we now have a huge glut of undersized guards that really aren't worth much in trade value. Is it deep? That is the opinion of most experts. In fact the deepest since 2003 and possibly even deeper. They could be wrong just like they could be wrong about Brooks. I hope that is the case, but I fear that it is not.
If Brian Cook, Delfino, and Perkins is your standard for "contributing." Then yes, I believe Brooks would be contributing pretty soon.
Even if Brooks was playing as the 2 guard in Oregon,it's going to difficult to play at the same position in the NBA and far more difficult to switch to the PG spot. He is gutsy,can score and works hard but I think it's going to take him some time before he can contribute in the upcoming season.
dont know if it has been posted yet, but eddie johnson has written very good things on aaron brooks in his blog http://hoopshype.com/blogs/johnson/index.php/2007/07/01/after-the-storm/
