# James Anderson vs. Xavier Henry



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Two sweet shooting 2 guards with limited ability off the dribble. Both projected near the end of the lottery. Who do you take and why?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I have no idea how good Henry was. I know Anderson "can" put the ball on the floor and shoot off the curl. Henry was practically Joey Graham on the perimeter. I have no idea what to expect from him. He looks like a bust to me.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

Anderson is for sure better right now but Henry has more potential obviously being a few years young. Id give Anderson the slight edge as a prospect just because in the games played against high level college teams Anderson averaged something like 20+ points while Henry basically disappeared, he shot around like 35% from the field in Big 12 play.
But its very close still because the talent is there for Henry and he seems to have a better physical profile for the NBA.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

I was pretty disappointed in X this year, he showed a few glimpses but not much in terms of offensive game. He looks like Michael Beasely playing in the pros. He mainly would just stand on the wing and wait for a J. The few times he would take it to the rim, he'd do those Bease-like finger rolls. As a Heat fan, that scares me considering how much Bease (who's bigger than X) has struggled with that same shot in the league. I did see him step up his D and 'toughness' the last 10 or so games. I'm still pulling for X but he's mostly potential/shooting/solid D at this point.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

I definitely like Xavier Henry as a prospect, I think his level of success will really depend on where he lands. If he goes to Chicago or Milwaukee, he's going to fit in perfectly and have a long and successful career.

James Anderson was a very productive college player, but I wonder how well his game is going to transition to the pros. He's pretty predictable on offense, and isn't on par athletically with most 2 guards in the League. Of course Henry lacks serious lateral quickness, but his three point shooting ability is scary. I don't know if you can say that about Anderson. Not to mention I think he'll be stopped a lot easier in the pros. In college teams respected his jumper so much that they just let him drive left whenever he wanted. I think Synergy sports has it at something like 86% of his drives were to the left. I don't know if he'll be able to get away with that in the pro's. Plus Henry has a freakish wingspan (6'11" 1/4) and is in incredible physical shape (4.7% body fat). I think his defense can be really good.

Like I said, it kind of depends where Henry goes but I think he projects a lot better than Anderson in the long run.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

James Anderson will be a better pro. He can create his own shot on the dribble, shoot running off screens and rebounds/distributes better than Henry. Henry disappeared for half the Big 12 season, the Big 12 tournament and the short lived NCAA tournament run. I think he is rather overrated as a scorer too. He had three 20 point games against Hofstra, Colorado and Oklahoma. I really didn't see him create much offense for himself either. Henry may have more potential, but he has far more question marks. With Anderson you have an energy guy off the bench and possibly a solid starter down the line.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

That is exactly why I think Henry would be a fantastic fit in Chicago or Milwaukee, because he wouldn't really have to create for himself. With Derrick Rose and Brandon Jennings feeding him open three's he would be a fantastic complimentary player, especially if he's a good defender.

Come to think of it, Boston would be a great fit as well.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Henry hasn't shown anything on the basketball court other than having a good body. Of a lot of the players, he really looks like a bust, because all he does is hang out on the perimeter.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Henry reminds me of QRich - a lazy adonis. He seems content to just camp out on the 3pt line. Anderson has shown improvement and leadership, but as I think they're both ultimately fringe or average NBA starting SGs, I'd probably take Xavier just for his ability to play more SF than James.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Both remind me of Brandon Rush. They get hype in HS and College, but as far as a pro career, they will be nothing more than average imo. If you want a fringe starter type of guy, then I think your safe with either.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

RebelSun said:


> *Henry reminds me of QRich - a lazy adonis. He seems content to just camp out on the 3pt line.* Anderson has shown improvement and leadership, but as I think they're both ultimately fringe or average NBA starting SGs, I'd probably take Xavier just for his ability to play more SF than James.


Funny, seeing as QRich was far from that in college.


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

Rather Unique said:


> Funny, seeing as QRich was far from that in college.


Quentin was an outstanding college rebounder, but other than that, I don't see much difference. He essentially devolved into a long-range chucker in the pros, and that process did begin in college. In his sophomore, and last, season, his FTA dropped by 50% while his 3FGA increased by 50%:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/richaqu01.html


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

oh no doubt that his NBA "development" mainly his success on the Suns made him into that 3 point chucker, which he did start in college. I'm not basing it on numbers, but i saw him work and bang in the post quite a bit at Depaul, shoot, him and Kmart had some good battles.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

HKF said:


> Henry hasn't shown anything on the basketball court other than having a good body. Of a lot of the players, he really looks like a bust, because all he does is hang out on the perimeter.


Which is exactly why it depends what team drafts him. If somebody is expecting the kid to develop into a playmaker who can create for himself then he's going to bust. But if he plays with a high level distributor he's going to be knocking down three's left and right.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

i'm thinking henry would be perfect for the hornets at 11 and anderson would be a great pick for the bulls at 17. i think henry is definitely the better shooter and defender while anderson is the better scorer. and i'd definitely prefer henry if i had to pick between the two.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

They seem to be pretty much evenly matched for the most part. I personally would take Anderson over Henry. I feel that Anderson plays with more aggressiveness and possesses more of a killer instinct. Henry though just a freshman was wildly inconsistent and he essentially disappeared for long stretches of time in some games. His energy level was lacking at times and he didn't appear to always play with great intensity. Although he was only a freshman and deferred a great deal to the more experienced Kansas stars, his lack of aggressiveness was still very disappointing. He's still a great talent and I think he has a chance to be a solid pro, but I also feel that he's overrated and maybe shouldn't go as high as some have projected him to go. 

Anderson is a tremendous talent and he has everything you need to become a great pro. I feel that he has the potential to develop into a bigger, more athletic version of Marcus Thornton. He's a great competitor with a killer instinct, and he never loses confidence in himself. While he's older than Henry, I feel that he'll be better than Henry both in the short and long-term because he has better intangibles.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> i'm thinking henry would be perfect for the hornets at 11 and anderson would be a great pick for the bulls at 17. i think henry is definitely the better shooter and defender while anderson is the better scorer. and i'd definitely prefer henry if i had to pick between the two.


I agree. Henry would be in a great situation playing alongside Chris Paul and Darren Collison. It's an ideal fit for him. I'm a Bulls fan and I would be thrilled if we could get James Anderson at #17. That would be an excellent value pick in my view. It'll be interesting to see if he's still on the board at that pick though.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Not sure the Hornets would be better off grabbing a big man than Henry.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

I just want to add, that although i agree myself with the majority of the comments of X not being aggressive and disappearing at certain times, remember he was probably at best the 3rd option in the offense, if not the 4th. Kansas offense was a whole lot of Sherron Collins pick n roll (in which he we would keep the ball a good chunk of times) and high low game between the Morris twins and Aldrich.

Anderson on the other hand, was OKstate's best player and was leaned on heavily.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HKF said:


> Not sure the Hornets would be better off grabbing a big man than Henry.


if monroe or udoh(even though i'm not high on him) is there at 11, i could see them potentially being better off with one of them. i don't see guys like davis, orton, patterson, or whiteside really helping the hornets out a whole lot.

adding a 3rd big to rotate with west/okafor is definitely something they need but i think finding a guy who can give them production in the 2/3 spot where peja/posey/mo pete have failed them is a bigger need.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Rather Unique said:


> I just want to add, that although i agree myself with the majority of the comments of X not being aggressive and disappearing at certain times, remember he was probably at best the 3rd option in the offense, if not the 4th. Kansas offense was a whole lot of Sherron Collins pick n roll (in which he we would keep the ball a good chunk of times) and high low game between the Morris twins and Aldrich.
> 
> Anderson on the other hand, was OKstate's best player and was leaned on heavily.


If X was as good as people said he was, don't you think he'd have done better than the bum ass Morris twins or Cole (heck it's not like Cole averaged that much anyway). There was nothing stopping X from being aggressive other than himself. It's like Orlando fans blaming Stan Van Gundy for Lewis camping out at the 3 and being afraid to dribble. Perhaps it's not a skill in his repertoire.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

The beautiful thing about Xavier Henry is that he's got a ton of roleplayer potential. Neither of these guys are going to be first or second options on a contender, so I like the fact that at 19 Xavier has shown the willingness and mental capacity to play within a team concept. Plus Xavier has shown the willingness to play defense, and his wingspan really gives you something to work with.

And again, I really don't know how well Anderson's offense will translate to the NBA. He got a ton of open looks off of screens in college, but in the pro's the offense isn't going to be ran through him. However, Anderson is the better shooter off of the dribble.


----------

