# al thorton vs al tucker



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

thorton is 6'7 and his verticle maybe a little higher than Tucker's besides that though what separates these 2???


Tucker is a better shooter/passer/defender
can play inside just as well as Thorton
led a team only slightly more talented than Thorton's to one of the better regular season records and number 2 seed in the tournament
also in the NBA neither will be able to have the ball in their hands nearly as much as they did in college and i think Tucker has skills that are suited better for playin off the ball
plus thorton as the same age as (if not older) tucker...

people forget Tucker has a 40inch vert according to alot of badger fans(even though its probably 37-38)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

fjkdsi said:


> thorton is 6'7 and his verticle maybe a little higher than Tucker's besides that though what separates these 2???
> 
> 
> Tucker is a better shooter/passer/defender
> ...


Tucker is an excellent leaper... quick to get off of his feet too. I think your analysis is right on. Tucker doesn't have much of a handle and is streaky shooting at times, but he finds ways to score the basketball, and is excellent in the interior. He has the tools to be a good defender in the NBA. 

Unfortunately, I haven't really seen Al Thornton play, so I don't know how to compare the two. At 6'5" Tucker is at a disadvantage...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Thornton will probably get a couple of ROY votes.He's ready to play in the NBA right now and he's going to be able to score in the NBA.Tell me how many people actually believe that Tucker is ever going to make an impact in the NBA.That's quite doubtful,he's not that good and he's going to need to land in the right place and work really hard just to stick in the league.Most likely he ends up in the ACB or La Lega after a year or two on the end of someone's bench.Even most Wisconsin fans think the guy is overrated.

None of those things are correct either.Tucker isn't better at anything than Thornton.The whole premise is laughable.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Diable said:


> Thornton will probably get a couple of ROY votes.He's ready to play in the NBA right now and he's going to be able to score in the NBA.Tell me how many people actually believe that Tucker is ever going to make an impact in the NBA.That's quite doubtful,he's not that good and he's going to need to land in the right place and work really hard just to stick in the league.Most likely he ends up in the ACB or La Lega after a year or two on the end of someone's bench.Even most Wisconsin fans think the guy is overrated.


I disagree that most Wisconsin fans think Alando Tucker is overrated. Where did you come up with that? Like I said, I haven't seen Thornton, but I think Tucker will be a contributer in the league. I'd value him as a late first rounder... and I think a title contender from last year will end up with a surprisingly good role player.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

good analysis there Diable

Thorton = ROY and Tucker sucks! ... you really broke down their games


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

oh ya if Tucker is undersized for a SF at 6'5 than Thorton is undersized for a PF at 6'7

Tucker is as much SG as Thorton is SF....


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Diable said:


> Thornton will probably get a couple of ROY votes.He's ready to play in the NBA right now and he's going to be able to score in the NBA.Tell me how many people actually believe that Tucker is ever going to make an impact in the NBA.That's quite doubtful,he's not that good and he's going to need to land in the right place and work really hard just to stick in the league.Most likely he ends up in the ACB or La Lega after a year or two on the end of someone's bench.Even most Wisconsin fans think the guy is overrated.
> 
> None of those things are correct either.Tucker isn't better at anything than Thornton.The whole premise is laughable.


Nimreitz is the only wisconsin fan that I have seen bash on Tucker. He isnt going to be an allstar caliber player, but he could be a decent good role player. Guys like Ager and Shannon Brown are still in the league.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Shannon Brown is still in the D league actually


I didn't say that Tucker sucked.I said this analysis sucks.Tucker just isn't that good.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Yeah you are right in that fjdski's original analysis is pretty off the point. Tucker really isnt a good shooter or passer and is actually a terrible defender


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Guys like Ager and Shannon Brown are still in the league.


that's because they were first round picks. something tucker is not going to be. if they don't show anything by the time their rookie contracts are up, they won't be in the league anymore.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> that's because they were first round picks. something tucker is not going to be. if they don't show anything by the time their rookie contracts are up, they won't be in the league anymore.


True, but what about Barea and Smith? Novak is still with the Rockets isn't he. Hassan Adams is still with the Nets also. It all boils down to how much Tucker can prove to a team that he can contribute


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Ager and Brown were also better than Tucker.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

HKF said:


> Ager and Brown were also better than Tucker.


I don't see how those two are clearly better than Tucker... the Badgers were 30-6 on the year, Tucker scored as well/better than those two... he's a great athlete... all in all they seem like prospects I'd rate pretty evenly.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

never said Tucker was a great passer or defender but he is definatly better than Thorton

midrange and inside i think thorton is better and i think he is a better scorer overall
but Tucker has more range thats what i mean by better shooter... he can spread a defense more

you gotta realize that thorton has a relatively low basketball IQ compared to Tucker too
he isnt gonna make of the ball plays like Tucker
I just don't see how Thorton is a top 10 pick and Tucker is a 2nd rounder
I take Tucker anyday 
maybe Thorton in rare cases i just think Thorton is overrated...


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

The beauty of the this place is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how much the facts don't support them.

Comparing these two players is laughable


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Dornado said:


> I disagree that most Wisconsin fans think Alando Tucker is overrated. Where did you come up with that? Like I said, I haven't seen Thornton, but I think Tucker will be a contributer in the league. I'd value him as a late first rounder... and I think a title contender from last year will end up with a surprisingly good role player.


I think Alando Tucker is vastly overrated, but most of my non-hardcore friends think he'll be good. No one who knows anything about basketball thinks he'll be anything more than a 10th man in the League though.

He can't shoot. If he was 6'7'' I think he would have a chance at being a Ryan Gomes or Craig Smith, but not at 6'4''. He's great on the block and can jump out of the gym (broke Finley's school vertical record as a freshman), but he can't be a wing.

EDIT: I should also say that Alando can be a very good passer when he wants to be. When his shooting was exceptionally poor last year in some games, he created a ton of wide open threes for his teammates. However, he just doesn't seem interested in passing and creating for his teammates most of the time. He can be a very selfish player.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

fjkdsi said:


> but Tucker has more range thats what i mean by better shooter... he can spread a defense more


tucker shot 32% from college 3. thornton shot 44% from college 3. tucker shot 47% overall. thornton shot 53%. tucker shot 66% from the ft line. thornton shot 79%.

but tucker is a better shooter with more range?


----------



## DanielGibson4MVP (Jun 8, 2007)

Tucker's height is definately a disadvantage at SF, but he definately made up for that at the college level. Whether he can bring that to the pro level remains to be seen. If he gets away from the streaky shooting, and has a good fluent shot, then he could be a threat.

Thornton definately has an advantage over Tucker by being taller, but he needs to improve his rebounding to be seen as a well polished small forward.

Thorton is more of a low risk/sure thing type guy.
Tucker is more High Risk/High Reward guy due to his explosivness.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Al Thornton is so much better than Alando Tucker it's not even funny. Half you guys analyzed Tucker as a college player (not a pro) and then said you've never seen Al Thornton play. Well I've seen almost every game Thornton played in college (many times in person), and I've posted about him numerous times on this site already. This discussion is so ludicrous I'll just re-post a few of the scouting reports I've written on this site already for those of you who haven't seen him play to get an idea of what his game is like and leave it at this: Danny Ainge recently said Thornton is the second best offensive player in the draft behind Kevin Durant (I agree) and Alando Tucker won't be in the league in a few year. Oh, and don't call him a tweener, he can shoot and handle the ball more than well enough for a professional SF. 


"Al Thornton is a superb ball handler for his size. In fact his scoring is primarily done off the dribble. He has a remarkably quick and explosive first step, and is a great jump shooter off the dribble left and right. He's not a terrific passer by any stretch of the imagination, but he's a very willing passer. He's not a black hole kind of guy, he's just not going to make many plays that result in assists. He doesn't turn the ball over that much either, and a lot of his turnovers are offensive fouls, something he does need to work on. Also need to put the tweener label to rest, he's a small forward with great post up ability, period. Like I said the handles are more than adequate for an NBA small forward, and the jumper is vastly improved even out to NBA 3-point range. He's not as good at catching and shooting, but he's decent. He's deceptively strong and has an array of reliable post moves. Given playing time I don't see any way he's not a good scorer on the pro level. Defensively he'll gamble too much and get burned from time to time, but he's such a good athlete it makes up for his errors a lot."

"I hope so. New Orleans is one of three or four possible destinations for Al Thornton that I'm hoping for as a big Thornton supporter. What I love most about him for the Hornets is what he can do for Chris Paul. He gives Paul a freakishly athletic finisher to work with, not to mention a player who can take some of the offensive play-making load away from Paul. Thornton comes into the NBA and instantly has one of the quickest and most explosive first steps in the entire league. He's a superb jump-shooter off the dribble (to his left or right) and he's a mismatch to most small forwards in the NBA in the post. He's a very good post player for a small forward, and he's not a tweener because he has excellent ball-handling and the jump-shooting I already mentioned for a guy his size which allows him to play small forward and take advantage of his size on shorter, weaker small forwards in the post.

Something that I think Thornton's often criticized for unfairly is his passing ability (or lack thereof). He's a willing passer, you have to take into account the team he was playing with. He was one of the best players in the entire nation and could never make it to the tournament at FSU because he was a man playing with a team of boys for the most part."

"I also disagree that his basketball IQ is low, the only argument there is that he picks up stupid fouls and gets into unnecessary foul trouble. He is a patient offensive player though and generally makes smart decisions passing the basketball, not to mention very good shot selection for a guy with his offensive capabilities. Al should go to Sacramento, Philadelphia or New Orleans. That's my hopes for him at least, I think in those situations he could come in and become a big time scorer right away and maybe even contend for ROY, certainly All-Rookie 1st team."

"People know he's a good athlete, but he's going to enter the NBA and already have one of the most explosive first steps in the entire league. He's an amazing athlete and maybe the most underrated shooter in the nation. On FSU he commands all the attention from the opposing defense and rarely gets a shot off thats not contested, yet manages to shoot well over 50% from the floor and over 40% from behind the arc (not to mention 80+% from the FT line). He's not by any means a catch and shoot type guy, but when he uses that first step to create some separation from the defense and rises up for the J, it's money. Thornton to Portland is a nightmare to me, that's the last place I'd like to see him. What worries me about Al is that people are going to label him a tweener even though I can guarantee you he's a more than capable NBA SF. He can shoot, he can handle and he's extremely quick for his size. He's probably going to measure in between 6'7 and 6'8. He has a great post game, he prefers to face the basket and drive but he knocks down the fallaway with consistency. He takes gambles defensively and picks up stupid fouls, but he generally has good instincts and his athleticism again allows him to impact the game that way."


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

i think thorton is a more talented all around scorer
but tucker has more range which means creating more space between him and other players...


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Tucker can't shoot to save his life.Thornton is a very good shooter with NBA three point range...God this is ridiculous


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

fjkdsi said:


> i think thorton is a more talented all around scorer
> but tucker has more range which means creating more space between him and other players...


:lol: 

Stop. You're digging yourself a hole you won't be able to crawl out of.

You even got the whole idea of spacing in regards to having range wrong. If Tucker is a good long range threat, he'll be played tighter. It's not going to create "space between him." It's going to create space in the post, but there won't be more space between him and other players. What you said makes no sense.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

This might be the most un-intentionally funny thread I've ever seen.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The thing about Thornton is that he was carry FSU for two years in a tough conference that put a lot of teams into the tournament (not to mention many guys in the NBA). This guy was practically unguardable even with double teams. I can only imagine him in New Orleans playing next to Paul, Peja and West. This guy will destroy one on one defense IMO.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Incidentally, Florida State played Wisconsin this past season and Al Thornton by far looked like the NBA Prospect in that game. And before you start decrying my memory, here's from the recap on the UW Athletics site:



> Thornton had three dunks and eight points by halftime, but suffered from leg cramps throughout the second half and added just two points. The preseason All-American blocked three shots in the first half and jumped over 6’11” Greg Stiemsma to get to the rim for one of his dunks.


----------



## DanielGibson4MVP (Jun 8, 2007)

Nimreitz said:


> Quote:Thornton had three dunks and eight points by halftime, but suffered from leg cramps throughout the second half and added just two points. The preseason All-American blocked three shots in the first half and jumped over 6’11” Greg Stiemsma to get to the rim for one of his dunks.


Did his dunks come from fast breaks? Obviously that doesn't take a whole lot of talent.

Thought I like to point out something from that game.

Thornton - 10 Points, 5 Rebounds

Tucker - 22 Points, 5 Rebounds, 2 Assists

I know Thornton suffered from leg cramps supposedly, but couldn't just move his game to beyond the arc? He didn't attempt one tray all game.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

DanielGibson4MVP said:


> Did his dunks come from fast breaks? Obviously that doesn't take a whole lot of talent.


If this is considered a fast break, then yes. I don't think this one took much talent.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBBBw3OoFrQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBBBw3OoFrQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

fjkdsi said:


> i think thorton is a more talented all around scorer
> but tucker has more range which means creating more space between him and other players...


It's _Thornton_ for God's sake.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HKF said:


> The thing about Thornton is that he was carry FSU for two years in a tough conference that put a lot of teams into the tournament (not to mention many guys in the NBA). This guy was practically unguardable even with double teams. I can only imagine him in New Orleans playing next to Paul, Peja and West. This guy will destroy one on one defense IMO.


He's honestly unguardable one on one. He has so many offensive weapons, he can really do it all. People give him credit for the athlete he is, but nobody gives him the credit he deserves for his much improved perimeter shooting and especially ball-handling, which is truly a testament to the hard worker he is. He's completely shed the tweener label through hard work, and those who say otherwise are misinformed. To say he doesn't have potential just because he's 23 years old is not smart given the work ethic of this man. Say what you want about the lack of success he had in college, but Thornton is a winner who had the misfortune of playing for one of the least talented teams in the best conference for his entire career, under a stubborn coach with a poor defensive system. Watch some of his big, clutch games over his career. Two years ago against Duke, this year against Florida (willing his team to victory against Horford and Noah), Virginia Tech (0 points, 2 rebounds at the half, finishes with 27 and 13 to defeat Dowdell, Washington and co.), Miami (45 points in a must win road game to keep his team's tournament hopes alive), Clemson in the ACC Tournament (25 and 11 despite being plagued by foul trouble, including the game winning free throw). The list goes on and on, he was a big game player and he is going to be very good in the pros. New Orleans is one destination for him that I'd love, along with Minnesota, Sacramento and Philadelphia.


----------



## DanielGibson4MVP (Jun 8, 2007)

hobojoe said:


> If this is considered a fast break, then yes. I don't think this one took much talent.
> 
> <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBBBw3OoFrQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBBBw3OoFrQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


In fact that is a fast break. I'm not saying Thornton can't dunk because he obviously can, but Greg Stiemsma is not all-star defender either, and almost certainly won't go pro. He didn't even have a chance to react.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

DanielGibson4MVP said:


> In fact that is a fast break. I'm not saying Thornton can't dunk because he obviously can, but Greg Stiemsma is not all-star defender either, and almost certainly won't go pro. He didn't even have a chance to react.


Seriously, are you kidding? No **** it's a fast break, since when is that not part of the game of basketball? And since when does it matter who the 6'11'' stiff on the receiving end of the poster is? Thornton straight jumped right over him, how many guys in the league have the athleticism to do that? He took off from outside the paint!


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Alando Tucker is a better shooter and has more range than Thorton, but I never saw Thorton play. All he does is get easy fast break dunks.


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

DanielGibson4MVP said:


> In fact that is a fast break. I'm not saying Thornton can't dunk because he obviously can, but Greg Stiemsma is not all-star defender either, and almost certainly won't go pro. He didn't even have a chance to react.


:lol: Post of the year


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually I think I have come to the conclusion that Thornton would be the best fit for Charlotte's needs at 8 or possibly a couple picks lower if someone wants to give us something to trade down.We need a SG or someone that score.I'm not sure Al can really play the two on a full time basis,but I think he's going to be the best offensive player available and that he'll be adequate guarding wings(one of our big problems is matching up with good two guards).

I just don't think I can stand waiting two years for someone like Hawes to either develop or not.Thornton is going to be a good NBA player and that's the first criteria for us right now.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Kid Chocolate said:


> Alando Tucker is a better shooter and has more range than Thorton, but I never saw Thorton play. All he does is get easy fast break dunks.


:rofl: 

I love parody posting


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Diable said:


> Actually I think I have come to the conclusion that Thornton would be the best fit for Charlotte's needs at 8 or possibly a couple picks lower if someone wants to give us something to trade down.We need a SG or someone that score.I'm not sure Al can really play the two on a full time basis,but I think he's going to be the best offensive player available and that he'll be adequate guarding wings(one of our big problems is matching up with good two guards).
> 
> I just don't think I can stand waiting two years for someone like Hawes to either develop or not.Thornton is going to be a good NBA player and that's the first criteria for us right now.


Al's been quoted saying he thinks he can play the 2 in the NBA, but I'm not sure I'm buying that. For short periods of time, sure. I just don't think it's the best way to utilize his abilities to expect him to play large minutes as a guard.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

All I will say is Tucker is going to surprise a lot of folks. It would be to his best interest that he is selected in the second round


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> All I will say is Tucker is going to surprise a lot of folks. It would be to his best interest that he is selected in the second round


Even if he does surprise (and I don't think he will) he won't belong in the same sentence as Al Thornton.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

HB said:


> All I will say is Tucker is going to surprise a lot of folks. It would be to his best interest that he is selected in the second round


Somebody will have to eventually replace Greg Buckner and Ruben Patterson


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

cpawfan said:


> Somebody will have to eventually replace Greg Buckner and Ruben Patterson


Those guys did have relatively good careers


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

hobojoe said:


> Even if he does surprise (and I don't think he will) he won't belong in the same sentence as Al Thornton.


You are overrating Thornton


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

HB said:


> You are overrating Thornton


I don't think I am. Other than Kevin Durant, who's a better offensive player in this draft? I don't think anyone is, and I'm not alone there. He's a hard worker, a winner and has amazing natural athleticism and talent. Put those three together, you're going to have a good player.


----------



## bruno34115 (Apr 14, 2003)

In their mock today, nbadraft.net put Thorton at 6 to Milwaukee.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

That would not surprise me and if I were Milwaukee I would bench Bobby Simmons.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

> It's Thornton for God's sake.


the only person that provided a legitmate arguement against me so far in the post......


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

fjkdsi said:


> the only person that provided a legitmate arguement against me so far in the post......


It's legitimate argument for God's sake.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

hobojoe said:


> Al Thornton is so much better than Alando Tucker it's not even funny. Half you guys analyzed Tucker as a college player (not a pro) and then said you've never seen Al Thornton play. Well I've seen almost every game Thornton played in college (many times in person), and I've posted about him numerous times on this site already. This discussion is so ludicrous I'll just re-post a few of the scouting reports I've written on this site already for those of you who haven't seen him play to get an idea of what his game is like and leave it at this: Danny Ainge recently said Thornton is the second best offensive player in the draft behind Kevin Durant (I agree) and Alando Tucker won't be in the league in a few year. Oh, and don't call him a tweener, he can shoot and handle the ball more than well enough for a professional SF.
> 
> 
> "Al Thornton is a superb ball handler for his size. In fact his scoring is primarily done off the dribble. He has a remarkably quick and explosive first step, and is a great jump shooter off the dribble left and right. He's not a terrific passer by any stretch of the imagination, but he's a very willing passer. He's not a black hole kind of guy, he's just not going to make many plays that result in assists. He doesn't turn the ball over that much either, and a lot of his turnovers are offensive fouls, something he does need to work on. Also need to put the tweener label to rest, he's a small forward with great post up ability, period. Like I said the handles are more than adequate for an NBA small forward, and the jumper is vastly improved even out to NBA 3-point range. He's not as good at catching and shooting, but he's decent. He's deceptively strong and has an array of reliable post moves. Given playing time I don't see any way he's not a good scorer on the pro level. Defensively he'll gamble too much and get burned from time to time, but he's such a good athlete it makes up for his errors a lot."
> ...


This isn't a legitimate enough break down of Thornton's game for you (since you obviously have no clue about him)? Do you need more? Should I explain to you why he's much better than a 6'5'' small forward who has no real NBA skill? Tucker's OK at everything but not really good enough at anything to find a role on an NBA team.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

yes thats a good breakdown of Al Thornton's game

but it didnt seem to be an arguement as you didnt really mention anythin about Tucker....
also you are sort of biased to Thornton ....
You probably know his game as well if not better than anyone on this site and your breakdowns of his game are good (when taking some exaggerations into the equation) but when arguin Thornton vs X you will obviously be biased towards Thornton...
so while your breakdown of Thornton's game was pretty good, you didnt offer an arguement that i thought was good enough against Tucker

and I still maintain that if I was in place of a lot of NBA teams and I had a choice between Tucker and Thornton i would choose Tucker


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

fjkdsi said:


> yes thats a good breakdown of Al Thornton's game
> 
> but it didnt seem to be an arguement as you didnt really mention anythin about Tucker....
> also you are sort of biased to Thornton ....
> ...


I'm biased towards Thornton because I'm a huge fan of his, sure. But I think I've put my bias aside and evaluated him as a prospect pretty objectively. I just happen to think he's a little underrated by most people because he's a 23 year old guy with much less national exposure than almost everyone else at the top of the draft coming out of college. For the record, the only players in this draft I'd absolutely take over Thornton are Oden, Durant, Horford and _probably_ Brandan Wright. As for taking Tucker over Thornton, I'm sorry I really can't help you with that.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

DanielGibson4MVP said:


> In fact that is a fast break. I'm not saying Thornton can't dunk because he obviously can, but Greg Stiemsma is not all-star defender either, and almost certainly won't go pro. He didn't even have a chance to react.


Stiemsma is actually a pretty solid post defender. He was on the receiving end of a million tick tack fouls this year when getting backed down, so he sat on the bench a lot, but he's not bad. He's by far the best shot blocker on the team, and at least one of the top 5 shot blockers in the Big Ten.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

fjkdsi said:


> and I still maintain that if I was in place of a lot of NBA teams and I had a choice between Tucker and Thornton i would choose Tucker


Hello Mr. Babcock. I always wondered what happened to you after Toronto.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Maybe we'd have more responses if anyone here knew who Al Thorton and Al Tucker were.I used to know a wiry little dude named Wayne Tucker...He was a real handful in a fistfight


----------



## Jenness (Apr 18, 2007)

I don't see how Al Thornton becomes an above-average nba player. His basketball IQ is way too low. I thought he displayed very little court awareness or vision. Is there a player in the nba one can say is good but doesn't have a good basketball IQ? I can't think of one.

He reminded me of Pietrus a bit, a guy you don't want making decisions with the ball aside from just shooting or driving it, a guy who is squarely a role player. At least though Pietrus has good defense that adds to his value, I'm not sure Thornton will.

I think Thornton will look very confused out there and his coaches won't trust him. I don't think he'll average more than 15 minutes per game and he'll get a bunch of dnp-s.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

Jenness said:


> I don't see how Al Thornton becomes an above-average nba player. His basketball IQ is way too low. I thought he displayed very little court awareness or vision. Is there a player in the nba one can say is good but doesn't have a good basketball IQ? I can't think of one.
> 
> He reminded me of Pietrus a bit, a guy you don't want making decisions with the ball aside from just shooting or driving it, a guy who is squarely a role player. At least though Pietrus has good defense that adds to his value, I'm not sure Thornton will.
> 
> I think Thornton will look very confused out there and his coaches won't trust him. I don't think he'll average more than 15 minutes per game and he'll get a bunch of dnp-s.


Jerry Stackhouse.


----------



## lw32 (May 24, 2003)

fjkdsi said:


> the only person that provided a legitmate arguement against me so far in the post......


Lol. He was correcting your skewering of his name. Nice try to turn the attention from your embarrassment of an argument.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Jenness said:


> I don't see how Al Thornton becomes an above-average nba player. His basketball IQ is way too low. I thought he displayed very little court awareness or vision. Is there a player in the nba one can say is good but doesn't have a good basketball IQ? I can't think of one.
> 
> He reminded me of Pietrus a bit, a guy you don't want making decisions with the ball aside from just shooting or driving it, a guy who is squarely a role player. At least though Pietrus has good defense that adds to his value, I'm not sure Thornton will.
> 
> I think Thornton will look very confused out there and his coaches won't trust him. I don't think he'll average more than 15 minutes per game and he'll get a bunch of dnp-s.


Thornton's basketball IQ is fine. Like I posted before, sometimes he picks up silly fouls and get into trouble because of that -- but that's as far as the basketball IQ argument goes. For such a talented offensive player playing with guys so much less talented than him, he sure showed great maturity in his shot selection and patience offensively in college. He gambles on defense a fair amount, but I wouldn't say excessively. He really does make good decisions on the court, I think this is yet again a case of people stereotyping and making assumptions about a player they know very little about.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

No, I am not trying to take eyes away from the arguement if anything its the opposite....

i want somebody to argue with me
the only person who has said anything that proved me wrong was whoever corrected my spelling of Thornton....

of course Hobojoe came through with a couple pretty good breakdowns of Thornton's game(i still think they are a little biased but w/e)
no one has attempted to compare the 2 players(NO COMPARISON! THORNTON IS JUST BETTER!!!)
lol.... people are just bashing me because i've stated an opinion that is not popular according to NBadraft.net and DX etc....

a few people also bashed Thornton while not sayin anythin about Tucker's game...


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

fjkdsi said:


> No, I am not trying to take eyes away from the arguement if anything its the opposite....
> 
> i want somebody to argue with me
> the only person who has said anything that proved me wrong was whoever corrected my spelling of Thornton....
> ...


Ok let's see here. Thornton is more athletic, has a better shot, has a better body for the position. His 6-7 to Tucker's 6-5 is an advantage for SF, as a 6-5 SF isn't a hot commodity. He can shoot better, and from further (more range). He is more athletic and can dunk in traffic and on fast breaks (see youtube clip posted). Tucker is too small to play SF and can't play on the perimeter well enough for a SG. Tucker also has very limited ball handling skills, while Thornton can create his own shot with ease.

Is that enough? Or is that a bad argument because I'm biased or something?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I dont necessarily agree with him being more athletic, Tucker can get up really well too. Thornton's ball handling is also not that much better than Tucker. Thornton has all the tools to be a really good player, I certainly would pick him over Tucker. But with hard work, I think Tucker can stick around in the league hopefully on a team that is ready to contend.


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

i'm not sure about more athletic while his vertical maybe higher tucker is pretty quick and very strong for his size

Thornton definatly has more touch 18 feet in but from there I'd say Tucker is better and has more overall range...

Ball handling is very comparable and as I said... if Tucker is a 6'5 SF than Thornton is a 6'7 PF....


if you think Thornton is better yes, maybe you can say cuz he is so unstoppable 18 feet in just maybe he is better than Tucker... but really how much better is he??? is Thornton really a top 10 pick while Tucker is a 2nd rounder???

I would still chose Tucker over him and it seems as if I am the only one who has seen both players play enough times to really judge....

Thornton doesn't have more potential either... they are both the same age and both have improved by leaps and bounds since entering college


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

oh ya HB you've watched both players play(it seems at least cuz you actually understand their games) also why do you think Thornton will be better??


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I mean from what I saw of both players, Thornton just has that will to succeed. He carried FSU numerous times. Tucker isnt as dominant as Thornton, he is more of a role player. Thornton was the go to guy on his team, too many times Tucker got lost in the game. Plus Tucker has two big counts against him, inconsistent scorer and not a very good defender. Bad ball handling skills at 6'5 isnt anything to write home about either. I'd have said he could be an Hassan Adams type player, but Adams is actually a very good defender.


----------



## Kid Chocolate (Jun 17, 2005)

So basically fjkdjfis you are the only one that seems to have seen both players play because no one agrees with you? Nice.

I've seen both guys play fairly often, and while Tucker was great at the college level there's not even a comparison of who is the better pro prospect.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

fjkdsi said:


> Thornton definatly has more touch 18 feet in but from there I'd say Tucker is better and has more overall range...


Thornton's range is better and he makes a much higher % of his 3 point shots



> I would still chose Tucker over him and it seems as if I am the only one who has seen both players play enough times to really judge....


No, many of us have seen both of them play. Your posting demonstrates that you haven't seen enough of them.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

fjkdsi said:


> i'm not sure about more athletic while his vertical maybe higher tucker is pretty quick and very strong for his size
> 
> Thornton definatly has more touch 18 feet in but from there I'd say Tucker is better and has more overall range...
> 
> ...


That's your problem right there, Thornton is not the tweener many once labeled him, he's a bona fide NBA SF. Alando Tucker on the other hand does not have the perimeter skills necessary to play SG and is too small to play SF. Not to mention, Tucker does not have a single NBA skill to speak of -- he's OK at a lot of things, but he's not good enough at anything to stick in the league in my opinion. That's just the honest truth, I apologize for being biased but that's the truth. 

One more note, I find it funny that you speak down to people and imply that their opinions are based solely on DX and NBAdraft.net and you spew some garbage about Thornton's ball-handling ability (or lack thereof) when in fact, that is the one part of DraftExpress' scouting report on Thornton that is blatantly incorrect. At one point in Thornton's college career that would've been a fair assessment of his game, but it's so far from the truth at this point. He's turned a weakness into a great asset through hard work and practice, and because of the improved ball-handling has the ability to create his own shot off the dribble and knock it down with consistency. Saying his ball-handling sucks is like saying he needs to work on his free throws -- it's outdated, it's something he's improved dramatically on in college through hard work (went from a 50% FT shooter to a shade under 80% his senior year).


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mr. Hobo, I have a serious question for you. Last year at this time, an older, incredibly athletic FSU forward was being overpromoted by sites such as DraftExpress ("The next KMart!!")("can't understand why he wasn't taken in the first round"), and it turned out that for Alexander Johnson, there was no there, there. Now here we are, talking about yet another older, incredibly athletic FSU forward. Can you explain, in your view, why Thornton is a better prospect than Johnson, and why he'll be a better pro? I'm not seeking snide remarks or a recount of their college stats. Since you've watched them play, I'd like you to convince me--all of us--that Thornton should be taken more seriously than Johnson. Thanks!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Well I am not hobojoe, but I watch a hell of a lot of ACC basketball. One thing I will say is that Thornton brought A+ maximum effort every single night on the basketball floor. Johnson for all his talent has motor issues. He doesn't always play to maximum capacity and his athleticism is overrated. 

Look if you don't use your athleticism on the basketball floor, then you're not athletic. PERIOD!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

In addition to that I was really surprised about the Johnson hype last year. Thornton has always been the superior prospect. I was shocked he was the one going back to school instead of Johnson


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Dumpy said:


> Mr. Hobo, I have a serious question for you. Last year at this time, an older, incredibly athletic FSU forward was being overpromoted by sites such as DraftExpress ("The next KMart!!")("can't understand why he wasn't taken in the first round"), and it turned out that for Alexander Johnson, there was no there, there. Now here we are, talking about yet another older, incredibly athletic FSU forward. Can you explain, in your view, why Thornton is a better prospect than Johnson, and why he'll be a better pro? I'm not seeking snide remarks or a recount of their college stats. Since you've watched them play, I'd like you to convince me--all of us--that Thornton should be taken more seriously than Johnson. Thanks!





HB said:


> In addition to that I was really surprised about the Johnson hype last year. Thornton has always been the superior prospect. I was shocked he was the one going back to school instead of Johnson


To be honest, it didn't surprise me all that much. Alexander Johnson has always been more of a "Von Wafer" than an "Al Thornton" if you know what I mean. Johnson seemed like a guy out there who was just in college to get to the pros and get paid. Al went out there and played every game like it was his last, and college really meant a lot to him. He wanted to win every single game, and he was always an incredible big game player. I mean, we're talking about the guy who went into Cameron Indoors and put up 37 and 15 as a junior while Johnson was busy fouling out in 14 minutes. You're talking about the guy who this year willed his team to victory with 28 points against the Gators, scored 27 in the second half against VT, poured in 45 on the road in the ACC against Miami to again will his team to victory in a must win game, versus the guy who put in 6 points and 3 rebounds in his final collegiate game en route to getting outscored by 20 in the second half to a terrible Wake Forest team in the first round of the ACC tournament which caused FSU to get snubbed two years ago. One guy loves the game of basketball and plays with passion, the other doesn't. 

Now as far as comparing the two on the basketball court, they're really not similar at all. Johnson is a pretty big guy, he's a power forward and has no perimeter game to speak of. He'll occasionally knock down a 16 foot jumper, but I wouldn't guard him. His athleticism is overrated as HKF said, you rarely saw it on the court. He's got pretty good vertical quickness, but that's about it. He never did anything that made you stand up and say "wow, he's athletic!". When Al Thornton gets the ball in the open court, everyone braces themselves because they know they're about to witness something special. He takes the ball to the hole so quickly, so aggressively and so fearlessly. When you watch Al Thornton play you see just how athletic he is because he puts it all out there on display. He's so quick and explosive, the vertical leap is really the least of it. This, and of course he has the great pull up jumper off the dribble which is what makes him such a great prospect for me. You have to respect his jumper. If you play off him, he'll rise up and nail that jumper more times than not. When you're playing up on him he's quick enough to get by anyone and finish. At this point I'm not confident in his ability to set up teammates off of his penetration, which is what may limit him and keep him from All-Star status, at least at first. But like every other weakness Thornton had in his game, I'm sure he's working hard on improving it.

So to answer you're original question Dumpy, Thornton is a much better prospect than Johnson because of their attitudes towards the game of basketball and because Thornton utilizes his athleticism on the court. They're two completely different players, Alexander Johnson is a post up big man, Thornton is a bona fide small forward with the perimeter skills to back up his excellent penetration and finishing abilities. Hope this helps.


----------



## Dumpy (Jan 6, 2005)

Thanks--that's a huge help. After not seeing either of them play in college, I've got to admit, when I saw Thornton's name on the mocks (next to his age, school, and description of his athleticism), I thought "here we go again." You cleared it up. I apprecate the response.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

Alexander Johnson didn't look bad this year did he?


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Johnson was basically just a big body in the ACC.He was a decent player who had some good games.He was never a star level player in college.So far his NBA career has been exactly what you'd expect from watching him in college.He's big and he can bang,he's going to be serviceable.Thornton was arguably the best player in the league and he has the physical attributes you look for in an NBA wing which leads most observers to conclude that his skills will translate well to the next level.Comparing Johnson to Thornton is like comparing Shaq to Stanley Roberts.Not all Tigers have the same bite...but some of them might occasionally eat an elephant.


----------



## hobojoe (Jun 20, 2003)

Going back and reading what I wrote, I may have come down a little harsh on Johnson -- he's not a bad player. I didn't mean to degrade him as much as I did to promote Thornton, he's not "just a big body". Johnson has talent (not even close to Thornton) and pretty good touch inside. He was a pretty good 2nd round pick in my opinion, I think he'll stick in the league. Thornton's a potentially special player though, it's just no comparison.


----------

