What's better in a role player skills or athleticism?

depends on the team, the rockets could do better with some insane athletcism that can shoot.

 

Thats only because we already have Shane Battier... The ultimate role player.

 

if he was ultimate... we wouldn't need an athlete player that can shoot.

 

Somebody probably already said this....it depends on what team needs.

For teams like Atlanta, Golden State, Denver, Portland, and New York (they need everything though)....it is role player skills with leadership.....Each have enough players who could jump over the goal, run the length of the floor in few seconds, but they all lack consistent role player or glue player or player to bring good leadership.

for team like the Rockets, San Antonio, Utah, and Los Angeles, they all definitely need someone who has lots of athleticism and aggressiveness (Compare this years SA team to the 03 team). All 4 lack a player like that to come off the bench, maybe not SA, but I know the other three do. Houston might eventually have that Landry, but can stay healthy. Utah has good role players off the bench, I don't think any of them are freaks of nature, same thing goes for LA.

 

I think a player with less athleticism but specialized skills is the definition of a role player.

If a player has a lot of athleticism and shows it on the court, then he's no longer a role player, he's a star.

 

stephen jackson, role player, young robert horry, role player, ron harper bulls version, role player, udonis haslem, role player, i'm intentionally picking championship team players. it just depends, all these guys were fairly important to their teams' success at the time.

 

The fast/strong athlete wouldn't know how to fully utilize his skills. He'll make a boneheaded play or choke when it counts.

I rather have the slow/weak but skilled player who knows how to run the system: make the right cuts, etc.

 

Which of those guys would you call highly athletic though?

Maybe that's where the answer tot he question lies, what exactly draws the line between someone who is athletic, but not specialized.

 

I wouldn't say so...so easily, I think you have consider players, like Channing Frye, Gerald Green, Boris Diaw, Jeff Green, Martell Webster, Ricky Davis, Dorell Wright, Nate Robinson, Stephen Jackson and a few other golden state players.

 

I don't consider anyone at Golden State a role player. They all play the same way and their "role" is to just play.

Gerald Green... didn't make it anywhere.. so how is he an example of a role player... he had no role.

Boris Diaw may be the best example yet, but if he were playing on any other team than the Suns he may not be as successful a "role" player (unless he was going to some place like Golden State)

 

the game has evolved just like the athletes today.. i would take skill over athleticism but more teams are going with athleticism in hopes that skills can be learned over time.. you can teach skills but you can't teach athleticism

 

Battier or Stromile/Green? You be the judge.

 

THe players are mentioned were in reponse to another reply which asked for athletic players who weren't all-stars.....

 

There's no skilled role players or athletic role players.

There's just good role players or bad role players.

Whether they're good or bad because of their skills and/or athleticism, is an entirely different matter

 

One has to have skills and a good IQ but you can't be a stiff either.

 

Hum, decent question.

How about this Vernon Maxwell (one of the most athletic guys in the league) or Kenny Smith (one of the most refined skills guy in the league)? They both were needed and pretty close to equally valuable as role players.

I think the answer is the players need to have both. If they are so unathletic they can't guard anyone (e.g., the Barry brothers, Dennis Scott, the Person brothers, Joe Kline), IMO they will never be your desired starting type role player. Elite teams will exploit them. Still could have value from the bench though.

That said, if they have a crial flaw in skills (Foyle, Pollard, Cato, guards who can't shoot like Vauhgn or Snow) or mental approach (judgement/court sense/focus, e.g., Swift) or sometimes both (Eddie Griffin)--they too are exploited. The only exceptions that right away come to mind are Rodman and Ben Wallace, but at least they could contribute by being great offense rebounders along with some other phenom attributes.

So I think the most appropriate answer is the good role players at least have to have decent base levels of skills and athleticism. Too little in either category and they become more of your bit/bench role player than your bread and butter role player.

After that I think I would take a trade off of skills/mentality first, than athleticism, if you are building an elite team. So if I were trying to round out an elite team I'll take Battier or Elie or Fisher or early Lakers version of Horry (higher skills/mentality than athleticism) over say Antinio Daniels, Derick Anderson, or AK47 (more athletic attributes than skills/mentality). But if you are on a sucky team, the latter guys are better (see what little Fisher, Horry and Battier could do without great players they can work off of).

 

this is a good example of how the skill is overrated.

Battier's skill did not help much in real games.

I'd take Stromile+Gay over Battier.