# Webster Vs Green....



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

*Martel Webster* 
DOB 12/5/86 
Meacurements
Bare Feet 6' 6"
In Shoes 6' 7½" 
Weight 229.6
Wingspan 6' 11"
Standing Reach 8' 10"
Combine Results
Bench Press Reps 7 
Verticle Leap 30½" 
Lane Agility 11.39 
3/4 Court time 3.39 

*Gerald Green*
DOB 1/26/86
Measurements
Bare Feet 6' 6"
In Shoes 6' 7¼" 
Weight 192.0 
Wingspan 6' 9¾" 
Standing Reach 8' 8"
Combine Results
Bench Press Reps 7 
Verticle Leap 39" 
Lane Agility 11.2 
3/4 Court Time 3.21


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Based on all the confirmed data, I like green better. Webster is one year younger, so he could still develop quite a bit, but Green's number look better.

Having said that, if Portland goes after Webster, I'm sure that they have good reason to do so. In terms of athleticism, the only real advantage Green has is his vertical, and you should subtract two inches for his reduced standing reach. If Webster shows better hops, etc. in his Portland workout (say 35" vert) and/or shows other outstanding qualities, then I wouldn't be disappointed in taking him. 

There is just too much unknown at this point to make any conclusory statement regarding which of the two is "better". 

But, since we have nothing better to do until draft day let's go for it anyway.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Bickerstaff's comments from the Bobcats site:



> Athletically there’s no comparison. They both shoot the ball. Obviously their bodies are different. Martell was really thick. [Green's] got nice arms. But they’re both really good basketball players, for high school basketball players. They’re both pretty good offensively. [Green] might be better defensively, in terms of lateral stuff. I think they’re different basketball players. [Green's] got great talent. I didn’t see a lot of things I heard about, and I told our coaches to keep quiet. Don’t coach him and see what kind of instinct he has. He really wasn’t that bad. I’ve been seeing things from watching tapes, and I’ve seen the kid make instinctive plays. But they’re quick to put that label on him.



"He really wasn't that bad"? I wonder what Bernie heard about him. And what's with the arm? Green's are one inch shorter each than Martell's, so they must be more muscular? Green's aren't long, so I'm not sure what he meant.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't think many people prefer Webster to Green... while it's interesting to compare them the question to me is how much more should the Blazers prefer Green.

If they have them close, it lets them trade further down and gamble that Green will slip to them or they'll have Webster as a nice insurance policy. If Green's in another stratosphere, they won't want to trade down much (or maybe at all, if they see Green as a better prospect than the PGs).

Ed O.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

While I Green does have a higher vertical leap, he also weighs 30 pounds less which indicates to me he is behind Webster in developing the muscle on his frame. Martell also has a longer wingspan which is better defensively, and will allow for extension while shooting. Now, what I want to know, what the hell does the lane agility numbers mean? Is a high number good or bad?


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

hasoos said:


> While I Green does have a higher vertical leap, he also weighs 30 pounds less which indicates to me he is behind Webster in developing the muscle on his frame. Martell also has a longer wingspan which is better defensively, and will allow for extension while shooting. Now, what I want to know, what the hell does the lane agility numbers mean? Is a high number good or bad?


Higher is worse.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

hasoos said:


> While I Green does have a higher vertical leap, he also weighs 30 pounds less which indicates to me he is behind Webster in developing the muscle on his frame. Martell also has a longer wingspan which is better defensively, and will allow for extension while shooting. Now, what I want to know, what the hell does the lane agility numbers mean? Is a high number good or bad?


huh..I didn't know that 1.25 inches was the difference maker in making someone a better defensive player.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Green is clearly the better athlete.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Those numbers aren't an indicator of who is the better player, but they are definitely something to look at....but the game isn't settled by measurements and I doubt the GM's will be swayed by a couple of inches on someones vertical....

This is what stands out to me about Webster...


> In terms of his intangibles, they appear to be fairly strong. His court demeanor looks good, he interacts well with his teammates and he seems to be a well spoken kid. He plays unselfishly and appears to be pretty mature for his age while carrying himself well on the court. He also supposedly has a very good work ethic.





> Once he sets his feet and gets his shoulders square, though, he is lights out. He can hit his jumper from anywhere on the court, and is good at getting his shot off in tough situations.


Webster Profile


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Last time I checked POR needed shootere not necessarily athletes.....

By reading some of these posts you would think Webster had zero athleticism....

I mean, if as Nash stated, Webster was able to play good defense on McCants and Nate Robinson, that speaks very strongly about his ability to defend to me...

Defense isn't so much about athleticism (although you need to have a basic NBA level of it) and is it about mentality....

Does a player want to commit the energy\effort necessary to defend? That is the improtant question...that is, unless you think Bruce Bowen is one of the greatest athletes in the NBA today.....

And everyone here should know that being a great athlete doesn't equate to being a great player....


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

Blazer management commented that they felt that Webster did a solid job guarding SGs. They must have had him guarding McCants. If he did a decent job guarding McCants, then that is a pretty good test of his ability. I would think a McCants (short and quick for a SG) would be Webster's worst nightmare. 

Also, they liked how Webster handled the ball (low) and created his own shot. If these things are true, given Webster is a year younger than Green, Webster may indeed be the leader for the Blazers.

Also, some have said that Green is the better athlete. Let's be clear--Green can jump higher than Webster, but their lateral movement and sprint times are pretty close. Jumping ability is only one aspect of athleticism.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I'm half surprised that Blazer management is admitting they are working anyone out.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

The difference between Green and Webster is huge, just look at the All Star game. Webster looked like a bench player on even a h.s. team and Green did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. Every shot was smooth as silk and it was easy for him to dunk on anyone. Yea he's older but for you guys who complain Green won't have an immediate impact well look at Webster. He's even further off than Green despite his weight. All Green needs is some strength which would be easy with his broad shoulders. Webster might turn out to be a good player but I don't think he will ever be a superstar, Green on the other hand has every tool to be a superstar and someone that fans around the NBA can say is their favorite player. He can be in the dunk contest next season for us. I still say the Blazers are going to acquire Green, through drafting him or trading for him with our draft pick.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

What game are you talking about?

I saw the McD's game and BOTH players were real impressive....I don't think you are giving an accurate portrayal of Webster's performance at all...


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Webster was very good in the McD game. 23 points, 6 rebounds, 2 blocks, 2 steals.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> The difference between Green and Webster is huge, just look at the All Star game. Webster looked like a bench player on even a h.s. team and Green did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. Every shot was smooth as silk and it was easy for him to dunk on anyone. Yea he's older but for you guys who complain Green won't have an immediate impact well look at Webster. He's even further off than Green despite his weight. All Green needs is some strength which would be easy with his broad shoulders. Webster might turn out to be a good player but I don't think he will ever be a superstar, Green on the other hand has every tool to be a superstar and someone that fans around the NBA can say is their favorite player. He can be in the dunk contest next season for us. I still say the Blazers are going to acquire Green, through drafting him or trading for him with our draft pick.



Yeah, you're off base on this one. it was Webster that shined more than Green in the McDonalds game. Green had some nice dunks, but Webster played an overall better game.


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

ooops, he had 16 points not 23. 23 is mins played. Still a nice outting though.


----------



## GOD (Jun 22, 2003)

I think that both played well in the allstar game, Webster had a good all around game, but Green not only had the dunks, but he had several 3 pointers, including one that was easily NBA range. 

I like Green much more then Webster, but I think that webster could be a nice player. The two things that stand out to me are 9 more inches on Greens vert, and 60% 3pt shooting last year. To have the ability to play above the rim and behind the arc makes him a very hard player to gaurd.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> The difference between Green and Webster is huge, just look at the All Star game. Webster looked like a bench player on even a h.s. team and Green did whatever he wanted whenever he wanted. Every shot was smooth as silk and it was easy for him to dunk on anyone. Yea he's older but for you guys who complain Green won't have an immediate impact well look at Webster. He's even further off than Green despite his weight. All Green needs is some strength which would be easy with his broad shoulders. Webster might turn out to be a good player but I don't think he will ever be a superstar, Green on the other hand has every tool to be a superstar and someone that fans around the NBA can say is their favorite player. He can be in the dunk contest next season for us. I still say the Blazers are going to acquire Green, through drafting him or trading for him with our draft pick.


Ding! Ding! Ding! 

We have a Gerald Green homer on our hands here...


----------



## Spoolie Gee (Feb 3, 2005)

Here's an interesting article to throw a little more gas on the Webster vs. Green debate...



> Posted on Thu, Jun. 02, 2005
> 
> Gibbons advises against prep star
> 
> ...


This was from www.charlotte.com. It's not on the website anymore I dont think.
That's only one scouts take but who's to say Nash doesn't feel the same way. Im not pulling for one over the other because Im not a scout and havent seen these kids play enough. I just want to see us get the most out of this pick and I trust Nash's judgement when it comes to scouting.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Ding! Ding! Ding!
> 
> We have a Gerald Green homer on our hands here...


I think I'd rather be a Gerald Green homer than a Adam Morrison  come on now. don't drag this conversation into the gutter 


Green has nothing to do with the argument, I just don't see Webster to be that great in the league. I think Wright would be better too.


----------



## OntheRocks (Jun 15, 2005)

Sambon,

What all-star game might you be talking about?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

OntheRocks said:


> Sambon,
> 
> What all-star game might you be talking about?


6 of 15 from the field? 2 of 7 from 3 point range? 3 more minutes played than Green. I'm still trying to understand what the fuss about Webster's shooting stroke is all about. Yea Webster didn't play TERRIBLE, but it seemed he was all for stats and rushed everything. Green pretty much showed his versatility on the offensive side it seemed. Webster seemed to have taken the shots that were given, Green took some pretty difficult shots and succeeded. I think Webster who is regarded to be a lotto pick should have done more in a McD's all star game than what he did. Green did what he did with ease it seemed and without force.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sambonius said:


> I think I'd rather be a Gerald Green homer than a Adam Morrison  don't drag th is conversation into the gutter please.
> 
> 
> Green has nothing to do with the argument, I just don't see Webster to be that great in the league. I think Wright would be better too.


your clever.....

How often do I ever mention Adam Morrison on here....meanwhile every post you have ever posted is something to either defend Gerald Green or promote him...


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

i am gonna have to go with webster on this one

IF he truly can defend SG's then i would pick him over green...it seems from reports that webster is in fact the more consistent shooter between the two...while green can maybe get hot more often, it sounds like webster is more steady

and if webster can develop a low post game then he would be devastating at the 2 spot...and i think his athleticism (while i admit not world class) is being over-analyzed...he is no slug


and to defend zagsfan...he never goes nuts talkin about morri (morrison).....BUT i will, adam is the ****....just wait..he is one of those guys that everybody shakes their heads at and say "how the **** does he do it?!?!?!" BUT he does and will be a good player in the league (not a star, even i admit that) but damn solid 2-3 option on a good team

 don't mask swear words.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

riehldeal said:


> i am gonna have to go with webster on this one
> 
> IF he truly can defend SG's then i would pick him over green...it seems from reports that webster is in fact the more consistent shooter between the two...while green can maybe get hot more often, it sounds like webster is more steady
> 
> and if webster can develop a low post game then he would be devastating at the 2 spot...and i think his athleticism (while i admit not world class) is being over-analyzed...he is no slug


Going off of just the writeups and a couple of all-star games I saw it seems that Webster is and will be the better shooter, and is more polished/NBA ready in general. Green is definitely a much better run/jump athlete with a pretty good shot himself, and has all the tools to excell on both ends of the court... but can he learn how to use them? Webster's 30' jumpreach is not impressive or are the comments that he doesn't seem interested in defense. Green's detraction is that he doesn't seem to have a good feel for the game, probably because he could dunk on everyone in HS whenever he felt like it. It might take him a little while to fill out and develope the ball skills he'll need in the pro's. 

Both are interesting, but I'd pretty much always rather have the guy with the most upside... so GG would be my guess.

STOMP


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

The basic feeling I have about it is that Portland does not need another project. Projects are good for teams that have players worthy of filling the starting roles now, and you will be needing a player at a certain position in so many years. Portland is in the position now, where some project players are just starting to pan out, and some others are just starting their second year. If Green or Webster are "Project" players, then trade the pick. 

Secondly, Portland does not need another small forward. If either of these players after evaluated seems to be another small forward, then they get a big thumbs down as well. Another thing to think about for small forwards, is if you were considering drafting them for such a position, is that 6'7" to 6'8" is for the most part, is starting to be considered too short for the position, as 6'10" to 7'+ SF are slowly and surely showing up in the league. 

Lastly, there have been plenty of players in the league who had a 39" or higher vertical, but are still not worth the air they breath out on the court. Do not get enamored with jump or jump reach, while a bonus, they do not equal talent, they equal physical ability. If a players ability to be productive out on the court is dependant on physical ability, then this is important. If they have enough game that they are not totally dependant on jumping ability and such, then then it is not as important.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> your clever.....
> 
> How often do I ever mention Adam Morrison on here....meanwhile every post you have ever posted is something to either defend Gerald Green or promote him...


What do you expect? It's close to draft time and I'm picking my guy, I did the same thing last year with Telfair and we picked him. When Morrison finally comes out I expect you to promote him if the Blazers have a chance to select him.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

Even Marvin Williams is a project....

These days the draft is all about projects....

I don't think trading down for a veteran starter is going to make this team significantly better, niether probably will Green, webster or Williams....bt 2-3 years from now if mgmt projects right on the kid they choose, POR could be VERY well off, and that is why you keep the pick....


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Even Marvin Williams is a project....
> 
> These days the draft is all about projects....
> 
> I don't think trading down for a veteran starter is going to make this team significantly better, niether probably will Green, webster or Williams....bt 2-3 years from now if mgmt projects right on the kid they choose, POR could be VERY well off, and that is why you keep the pick....


Agreed, with the addition that I am generally in favor of trading down from #3 (assuming Marvin and Bogut are gone) to get two first round picks because I think that at #5 or #7 we can get a very similar player to the one we'll get at #3 (except for Chris Paul, and I'm pretty sure Portland wouldn't be willing to keep him, anyways).

Ed O.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I concur, and that is what I think Nash is holding out for.

I'd be happy with either Green or Webster and another pick...be it at #13, #16 or from another team (NJ? DEN?)....

And even though it is a longshot, I still hold out hope for a surprise, like Williams or Bogut dropping to #3 and then POR acquiring another mid 1st round pick somehow

I think a Marvin Williams & Rudy Fernandez draft would be incredible


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

hasoos said:


> Portland does not need another small forward. If either of these players after evaluated seems to be another small forward, then they get a big thumbs down as well. Another thing to think about for small forwards, is if you were considering drafting them for such a position, is that 6'7" to 6'8" is for the most part, is starting to be considered too short for the position, as 6'10" to 7'+ SF are slowly and surely showing up in the league.


remind me of all the 7+ foot SF's...I can't think of one. Miles measured 6'8 barefoot, and more times then not, he seems the bigger 3 to me. Maybe you're thinking of listed measurements and not actual, but I think 6'7- 6'8 is the norm, and definitely not too small.



> Lastly, there have been plenty of players in the league who had a 39" or higher vertical, but are still not worth the air they breath out on the court. Do not get enamored with jump or jump reach, while a bonus, they do not equal talent, they equal physical ability. If a players ability to be productive out on the court is dependant on physical ability, then this is important. If they have enough game that they are not totally dependant on jumping ability and such, then it is not as important.


sure it's not all important... on offense... but I can't think of too many better 
then average defenders who weren't better then average NBA athletes, especially at the ultra athletic 2 guard spot. Come to think of it, I can't think of a 6'6 (or taller) long limbed prospect with a 39" vert and a solid outside jumper who was a bust ever (unless we're talking character issues). Most all of those types of guys turn out to be All Stars. Vertical jumpreach gives an indication how explosive and quick a player is. It's not the end all but those are good things to have going for you IMO.

Maybe Webster is worthy of trading down for, I really don't know, but Green was the one that stood out to me in the two All Star games I saw... I think the ceiling is pretty high for that kid.

STOMP


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> I think a Marvin Williams & Rudy Fernandez draft would be incredible


that would be my ideal draft if we could somehow pull that off, I'm a huge Rudy fan and Marvin will be a superstar caliber player IMO..

I think theres a lot of people underrating this draft, I actually think it will be a pretty good one...


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

rudy rudy rudy rudy


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

STOMP said:


> I can't think of a 6'6 (or taller) *long limbed * prospect with a 39" vert and a solid outside jumper who was a bust ever (unless we're talking character issues). Most all of those types of guys turn out to be All Stars. Vertical jumpreach gives an indication how explosive and quick a player is. It's not the end all but those are good things to have going for you IMO.
> STOMP


I don't think Green fits the description of being long limbed. Compared to the other guys measured at Chicago that were around 6'6", Green was tied for the shortest wingspan. But he can jump. So, while Green can jump higher than Webster, if they are both on the ground playing good position defense, Webster can reach two inches higher and about an inch wider (with each arm). I think that should be considered along side the vertical leap numbers.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> I don't think Green fits the description of being long limbed. Compared to the other guys measured at Chicago that were around 6'6", Green was tied for the shortest wingspan. But he can jump. So, while Green can jump higher than Webster, if they are both on the ground playing good position defense, Webster can reach two inches higher and about an inch wider (with each arm). I think that should be considered along side the vertical leap numbers.


Certainly extra length is a good quality. I guess my _long limbed_ comment is sort of arguable... usually a persons wingspan is equal to their height... but usually people aren't 6'6 and able to jump 39"... so if I can amend my comment, GG's length is about average for top prospects as most all are long limbed.

Anyways... here's a few guys #'s from last year for extra comparisons...

player.... height-wingspan-jumpreach
Livingston-6'6.2...6'11..... 30"
Iguodala- 6'5.75 ...6'11... 34.5"
Childress- 6'5.75 ...6'11... 35"
LJackson- 6'6.........6'8.5...36"
KSnyder- 6'6.........6'9......35" 
JR Smith- 6'5.5......6'10....35.5"
JoshSmith-6'7........7'0......39.5"

and our thread guys

Green - 6'6...6'9.75....39"
Webster-6'6...6'11......30.5"

STOMP


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Agreed, with the addition that I am generally in favor of trading down from #3 (assuming Marvin and Bogut are gone) to get two first round picks because I think that at #5 or #7 we can get a very similar player to the one we'll get at #3 (except for Chris Paul, and I'm pretty sure Portland wouldn't be willing to keep him, anyways).
> 
> Ed O.



Agreed. The closer we get to the draft, the more convinced I am that we will *not* get a difference maker at #3. If all we are going to get is a solid player, then trade down and get *2* solid players!


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Oldmangrouch said:


> Agreed. The closer we get to the draft, the more convinced I am that we will *not* get a difference maker at #3. If all we are going to get is a solid player, then trade down and get *2* solid players!


Yep. Looking at it another way, there's no sure-fire difference maker at #3, but there are players that MIGHT be difference-makers in the first 10 or 15 picks. Let's get two of them and hope that at least one of them evolves into a difference-maker, rather than putting our eggs into one basket.

Ed O.


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

In the draft workout thread there's a note that on Courtside they said that Webster recorded a 38" vertical leap. Did anyone else catch this? It is hard to believe it was a standing vertical leap, as that would have Webster hitting 1" higher on the backboard, given his longer arms.

If Webster does have a 38" standing vertical, does that change things for anyone?


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Reep said:


> If Webster does have a 38" standing vertical, does that change things for anyone?


Of course. That would mean he has outstanding athletism to go along with his supposive smooth jumper. Nash says he's really good at creating shots for himself off the dribble too.

I wonder how it's possible that he'd have a difference of 7.5" from the combine to his Blazer private workout though... it's possible I guess, but I'd say odds are that someone mixed up some data in one way or another. I'd put odds on courtside being wrong over the combine but :whoknows:

STOMP


----------



## Reep (Jun 4, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Of course. That would mean he has outstanding athletism to go along with his supposive smooth jumper. Nash says he's really good at creating shots for himself off the dribble too.
> 
> I wonder how it's possible that he'd have a difference of 7.5" from the combine to his Blazer private workout though... it's possible I guess, but I'd say odds are that someone mixed up some data in one way or another. I'd put odds on courtside being wrong over the combine but :whoknows:
> 
> STOMP


The 38" sure sounds like a one step jump given his Chicago results. That would fit in with Green's reported 44" one step jump.


----------

