# For all you Harden haters (The Krakken, Cager)



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Player No step vertical jump (inches) Maximum vertical jump(inches) No step vertical jump (height)
Harden 31.5 37.0 11' 3'' 
Derozan 29.0 38.5 10'11.5 

Maximum vertical jump(height)Bench Press (185 lbs)(repetitions)Lane Agility(seconds)3/4 Court Sprint(seconds) 
Harden 11' 8.5'' 17 11.1 3.13 
Derozan 11' 9'' 5  11.88 3.31 

Here is the link: http://www.nbadraft.net/node/6301 

I posted a topic a while ago suggesting we should try and trade for the 6th pick not resign BG and hope to draft Harden at 6. Well a couple people here vehemently opposed Harden because he wasn't "athletic". I can't even begin to describe how many times I have heard people on this board smash prospects and players for being unathletic, starting with Hinrich V Pietrus years ago and continuing with Blair,Harden, and Hansbourough. Anyways I thought some of you guys might find it interesting that on paper Harden has excelled Derozan in athletic measurements. Some of you guys need to stop being so blinded by "athleticism" (specifically dunking) and start paying attention to how well people actually play basketball.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

He tested athletic. However, he has not shown that in college. The games I've watched he was not athletic in his moves. He did not dominate against good college teams. It definitely will be interesting to see how he performs at the NBA level. I will believe my eyes until Harden can prove otherwise. It is , after all, what you can do on the court that matters.

I am not blinded by athleticism. His actual play was of someone that wasn't athletic. He had trouble getting and making his shot against good college teams. College players are not the highest level. If he struggles against good college competition then to me that indicates potential problems at the next level. 

Besides Harden, I really question what Thibeet will be in the NBA. Blair sure dominated him in college. Thabeet is great off the ball but he has much less strength than Noah and we know Joachim struggles against strong centers.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I have to say that I'm mildly amused that you are placing me in your title after referring to me as a loser and such like........

Anyway, I'll break my own self imposed rule of not dealing with certain posters, just this once to eat my crow.

I noticed that he tested out better than expected. In fact, outside of how well Mullins tested, it was the first thing that jumped out at me. I'm pleasantly surprised. The term Hater is thrown around too loosely these days. I was and remain suspicious of his athletic abilities on the court, but my doubts don't make me a hater. I'm just not a believer yet.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Cager summed it up well. Harden's game isnt based on athleticism, he's like a short version of Jalen Rose. If the thread starter is so enamored with athletic wings, why not take a Budinger, Williams or Derozan?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

HB said:


> ^Pretty much. Harden's game isnt based on athleticism, he's like a short version of Jalen Rose.


That's pretty much what I see as well.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You need to use that athleticism in games or the tests are meaningless.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

You guys are ridiculous, I mean you just won't admit when you are wrong. I love that you guys are jumping on the "he doesn't show it in games" bandwagon. Really?
I mean he did average, 18 as a freshman, 20 as a sophmore while shooting about 50 percent from the field over those two years. And is widely considered the best two-way guard in the draft. I mean what does he have to do to show his athleticism?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKO7ssrBLkU

Face it, you guys are in love with guys who can dunk regardless of whether or not they are effective. And you have no ability to discern whether or not someone actually is athletic unless they are are scoring a high percentage of their buckets with dunks.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

HB said:


> Cager summed it up well. Harden's game isnt based on athleticism, he's like a short version of Jalen Rose. If the thread starter is so enamored with athletic wings, why not take a Budinger, Williams or Derozan?


Is it a bad thing to be very athletic and not base your game on athleticism? To me it seems like you are making my point by admitting that Harden does not base his game on athleticism but instead on skills while utilizing his top-shelf athleticism.

I dont understand the short version of Jalen Rose comparison, but Rose was a very good offensive player in the NBA for a long time (although the comparison makes no sense to me).

How could you possibly read my post and decide that I am so "enamored with athletic wings" and then suggest that i should want derozan instead of Harden when i just compared Harder to Derozan athletically and Harden was clearly the more athletic wing.


IMO your post completely lacked any common sense.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't have an opinion on this matter, however I will say that these athletic tests often produce some strange results. 

Derrick Rose last year, for example, basically fell into the "good, but not great" category athletically. But how can anyone deny that he is the fastest end to end player in last year's draft? 

I remember once there was a big, slow 7-footer (can't remember who, maybe 4-5 years ago) who had a better lane agility test than one of the PG's. I wondered who was facilitating these drills.

A few years ago, Ronnie Brewer tested out as one of the best all-around athletes the combine has ever seen. Had an incredible combination of speed, agility, strength, and vertical. But, can we really say that Brewer is that special kind of athlete on the basketball floor? He's a good athlete, but he's not a freak as this would suggest.

The list of these anomalies is actually pretty long...


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> Is it a bad thing to be very athletic and not base your game on athleticism? To me it seems like you are making my point by admitting that Harden does not base his game on athleticism but instead on skills while utilizing his top-shelf athleticism.
> 
> I dont understand the short version of Jalen Rose comparison, but Rose was a very good offensive player in the NBA for a long time (although the comparison makes no sense to me).
> 
> ...


Rose was in fact a decent NBA player. So comparing Harden to him isn't exactly a bad thing. Now back to Harden, you bring up these measurements but as mentioned by most who have responded, it doesnt make sense if he has a 50 inch vert when his game isn't about dunking over people, neither is it about shooting over people. Look Harden in the biggest games of his career was shut down by college defenders, how in the world is it going to get better against elite NBA athletes and defenders? P.S. Harden isn't utilizing any top shelf athleticism by the way, have you watched him? Also realize, Rose was 6'8, Harden's 6'5. One guy can shoot over defenders, the other cant.

As for being enamored with athletic wings, if you really want wing guys who will put their athleticism to use on the court. James Harden isnt on the list.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

HB said:


> Rose was in fact a decent NBA player. So comparing Harden to him isn't exactly a bad thing. Now back to Harden, you bring up these measurements but as mentioned by most who have responded, it doesnt make sense if he has a 50 inch vert when his game isn't about dunking over people, neither is it about shooting over people. Look Harden in the biggest games of his career was shut down by college defenders, how in the world is it going to get better against elite NBA athletes and defenders? P.S. Harden isn't utilizing any top shelf athleticism by the way, have you watched him? Also realize, Rose was 6'8, Harden's 6'5. One guy can shoot over defenders, the other cant.
> 
> As for being enamored with athletic wings, if you really want wing guys who will put their athleticism to use on the court. James Harden isnt on the list.


:wtf:
I don't know what you are responding to but it certainly isn't my posts. Because your responses have almost nothing to do with what I am actually saying.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

HKF said:


> You need to use that athleticism in games or the tests are meaningless.


Bingo.


You can't possibly have watched Derozan and Harden play in actual basketball games and come to the conclusion that Harden is a better athlete than Derozan. Theres just no way. Harden has more skill at this point, but Derozan is 10X the in-game athlete Harden is.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> Bingo.
> 
> 
> You can't possibly have watched Derozan and Harden play in actual basketball games and come to the conclusion that Harden is a better athlete than Derozan. Theres just no way. Harden has more skill at this point, but Derozan is 10X the in-game athlete Harden is.


I am not sure why you think Harden is less athletic "in game" than Derozan. Considering Harden avg 17.8 points per game 5.3 rebounds,2.1 steals .6 blocks, and shot .527 from the field as a freshman.
Derozan avg 13.9 points per game and 5.7 rebounds,.9 steals, .4 blocks while shooting .523.

They both played about the same minutes per game and were in the same conference at basically the same position.

So what is it about Harden's in-game play that makes you think he is not athletic?

It is hilarious that even though Harden tested as more athletic *and* was a much more effective college player, you guys still claim that he is not _near_ as athletic as the other top-shelf athletes in the draft. Because he doesn't "play like an athlete", whatever that means.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Because Harden hasn't exhibited this "athleticism" in an actual collge game. In the NCAA tournament he looked slow and struggled to beat his man off the dribble. He has mre basketball skill (not athletic ability) than Derozan, but not athletic ability.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Thought this was gonna be about Rich Harden.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

You dont have to be athletic to put up 18ppg


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't have an opinion on this matter, however I will say that these athletic tests often produce some strange results.
> 
> Derrick Rose last year, for example, basically fell into the "good, but not great" category athletically. But how can anyone deny that he is the fastest end to end player in last year's draft?
> 
> ...


Which is precisely why I rely on my own eyes to make my judgements. And no, I don't base my evaluations on athleticism alone.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I should add, that I'm not "enamored" with a single player in this draft, and I think this is the worst draft I've seen since I started following the draft. So once again, another one of your "characterizations" of my positions is misguided.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I should add, that I'm not "enamored" with a single player in this draft, and I think this is the worst draft I've seen since I started following the draft. So once again, another one of your "characterizations" of my positions is misguided.


Were you following the 2000 draft? That was just a terrible draft, one of the worst ever. 

Michael Redd in the 2nd round was good, but what else? It's just bust after bust when you walk through the lottery picks. Kenyon Martin (OK), Swift (bust), Fizer (bust), Mike Miller (OK, but top 5??), Chris Mihm. 

I'm curious as to which is worse, as I don't know anything about this year's crop other than we have a consensus #1 pick who will be very very good.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Were you following the 2000 draft? That was just a terrible draft, one of the worst ever.
> 
> Michael Redd in the 2nd round was good, but what else? It's just bust after bust when you walk through the lottery picks. Kenyon Martin (OK), Swift (bust), Fizer (bust), Mike Miller (OK, but top 5??), Chris Mihm.
> 
> I'm curious as to which is worse, as I don't know anything about this year's crop other than we have a consensus #1 pick who will be very very good.


Yes I did. Horrible Draft. Worst that I've seen. I think this one is similar. In fact, I'm not convinced Blake Griffin is going to be the second coming of Dwight Howard at this level. I think he'll be a VERY good player, but I reserve Great.

He's a consensus #1 pick, but last year, he would have struggled to break the top 8-10.

Of course we won't know how good this draft is until down the road, but I think it depends heavily on how good players like DeRozan, Evans and Mullins turn out to be. They are clearly the players with the most upside outside of Griffin. I just wonder if they'll put it all together.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> Because Harden hasn't exhibited this "athleticism" in an actual collge game. In the NCAA tournament he looked slow and struggled to beat his man off the dribble. He has mre basketball skill (not athletic ability) than Derozan, but not athletic ability.


So when you say he hasn't exhibited his athleticism in a clogge game i guess you are ignoring his effectiveness. It seems like you think his success is built around his skill but you are completeley ignoring his top-shelf athleticism (which is certainly a part of his game). I guess what you are saying is that he is an excellent athlete but just chooses to not use it in-game? yet he is still the best 2g in the draft. Well if what you are saying is true it seems like he would have the most potential in the draft. 

*BTW the NCAA tourney was *two* games.

Also please view the youtbue I posted earlier and tell me he has not exhibited athleticism in-game.

Your arguements have more holes than swiss cheese.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> Yes I did. Horrible Draft. Worst that I've seen. I think this one is similar. In fact, I'm not convinced Blake Griffin is going to be the second coming of Dwight Howard at this level. I think he'll be a VERY good player, but I reserve Great.
> 
> He's a consensus #1 pick, but last year, he would have struggled to break the top 8-10.
> 
> Of course we won't know how good this draft is until down the road, but I think it depends heavily on how good players like DeRozan, Evans and Mullins turn out to be. They are clearly the players with the most upside outside of Griffin. I just wonder if they'll put it all together.


Blake was absolutely a top 5 pick last year, also Earl Clark has more upside than any of the players you mentioned. This draft isnt as bad as 2000, the saving grace will be players taken towards the end of the draft. Guys like Hansbrough will have solid careers.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

HB said:


> Blake was absolutely a top 5 pick last year, also Earl Clark has more upside than any of the players you mentioned.


I don't see Blake as a Top 5 pick last year. I don't know that he would have been the first big off the board, and after:

Rose
Beasley
Mayo
Westbrook.....

Is he picked ahead of Love based on the 2007-2008 body of work? I don't think so. Love was widely regarded as the better prospect for most if not all of last season. In fact, prior to OJ mayo's late run, and Rose's ascension, some mocks had him going Second or third behind Michael Beasley.

But I seriously SERIOUSLY doubt he's picked ahead of Rose, Beasley, Mayo or Westbrook.

In any case, the point remains. THere's very little in the way of sure things in this draft.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

ATLien said:


> Thought this was gonna be about Rich Harden.


So did I.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

CASEYRH,

We will find out about Harden next year. It is never easy to see who will succeed in the NBA. All most of the posters are trying to communicate is that in games Harden has not shown great athleticism and in fact looks slow when he is dribbling. He has not shown up big when it counted this year or against better competition. These are not attributes you would normally be looking for in a lottery draft pick. There are major shortcomings in evaluating players based on the NBA draft tests. They certainly can provide guidance when coupled with extensive scouting. I think it is much better to see people in a real game than even the drills that teams put players through. Bottom line on this for me is that I would not risk drafting Harden in the top 10 and I'll be curious how he does because he certainly seems to be a top 6 pick.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> I don't see Blake as a Top 5 pick last year. I don't know that he would have been the first big off the board, and after:
> 
> Rose
> Beasley
> ...


Most draft sites had him as a top 5 pick. There's no way Westbrook gets picked over Blake. He was considered the most athletic big man in the draft not named Beasley, so yes he'd get the nod over Love. A Griffin-Jefferson frontcourt is better than a Love-Jefferson frontcourt.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Yes I did. Horrible Draft. Worst that I've seen. I think this one is similar. In fact, I'm not convinced Blake Griffin is going to be the second coming of Dwight Howard at this level. I think he'll be a VERY good player, but I reserve Great.
> 
> He's a consensus #1 pick, but last year, he would have struggled to break the top 8-10.
> 
> Of course we won't know how good this draft is until down the road, but I think it depends heavily on how good players like DeRozan, Evans and Mullins turn out to be. They are clearly the players with the most upside outside of Griffin. I just wonder if they'll put it all together.


You should really start to follow another sport. Because basketball just isn't your niche. Griffin would have struggled to get into the top 8-10 last year? he was a top 3 lock. and Derozan, evans, and Mullins *clearly* have the most potential outside of Blake?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Cager said:


> CASEYRH,
> 
> We will find out about Harden next year. It is never easy to see who will succeed in the NBA. All most of the posters are trying to communicate is that in games Harden has not shown great athleticism and in fact looks slow when he is dribbling. He has not shown up big when it counted this year or against better competition. These are not attributes you would normally be looking for in a lottery draft pick. There are major shortcomings in evaluating players based on the NBA draft tests. They certainly can provide guidance when coupled with extensive scouting. I think it is much better to see people in a real game than even the drills that teams put players through. Bottom line on this for me is that I would not risk drafting Harden in the top 10 and I'll be curious how he does because he certainly seems to be a top 6 pick.


The problem is, most of you guys have a very poor understanding of basketball. Being athletic isn't about running around like a maniac and trying to dunk everything. It is about your ability to beat people off the dribble, create your own shots, finish inside, stay with your man on D, etc... Something that Harden has excelled at. That is why even before these measurements came out I knew he was a very good athlete. The measurements listed in this thread *validate* my original arguements. Now because so many of you guys have been proven wrong you have decided to band together and go with this ridiculous arguement that "Harden doesn't show his athleticism in games". The obvious flaw in that arguement is that he is definately the best in-game two-way 2g in the draft. So now that it has been established that he is the best in-game player and the best athlete measurement wise you guys are starting to say things like "I rely on my own eyes". Which means nothing to me.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

caseyrh said:


> The problem is, most of you guys have a very poor understanding of basketball. Being athletic isn't about running around like a maniac and trying to dunk everything. It is about your ability to beat people off the dribble, create your own shots, finish inside, stay with your man on D, etc... Something that Harden has excelled at. That is why even before these measurements came out I knew he was a very good athlete. The measurements listed in this thread *validate* my original arguements. Now because so many of you guys have been proven wrong you have decided to band together and go with this ridiculous arguement that "Harden doesn't show his athleticism in games". The obvious flaw in that arguement is that he is definately the best in-game two-way 2g in the draft. So now that it has been established that he is the best in-game player and the best athlete measurement wise you guys are starting to say things like "I rely on my own eyes". Which means nothing to me.


If this was the case, why did Harden pull a Houdini in the NCAA tourney, in the biggest games of his career?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Being athletic isn't about running around like a maniac and trying to dunk everything. It is about your ability to beat people off the dribble, create your own shots, finish inside, stay with your man on D, etc....


I couldn't care less about either guys you mention in your argument, but must disagree with your definition of athleticism. Athleticism is exactly how fast you can run and high you can jump, and your agility. All of the things you listed, are basketball skills. I was MUCH more athletic than my teammates when I used to play...could run the fastest, jump the highest, and was the strongest as well, but some of them were better at those things due to higher skill level. 

Athleticism and the ability to do all of those things aren't the same thing. Athleticism HELPS you do those things, but the basic skill has to be there first, and a more developed skill level enhances it a lot. Even just staying with your man on D and finishing inside require a skill and mental aspect, not just athleticism.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

HB said:


> If this was the case, why did Harden pull a Houdini in the NCAA tourney, in the biggest games of his career?



Two games.
It is an extremely small sample size that is already factored into his season averages.
But I can't have an intelligent debate with someone who evaluates a players entire collegiate career based on two games.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Its funny how you act like you are some basketball guru, to me its you who cant deal with other people's opinions, and going by the fact that you actually started a thread to call out those who disagree with you, I'd say am right on the money.

As for Harden, dude do you know how many college games I watch every year? Harden just doesn't do it for me. He's too controlled out there. He's a skilled 'college' basketball player but I dont know how thats going to translate to the NBA, because he's not a guy who is going to use his athleticism to beat anyone. Savvy can only get you so far. Luckily for him, this is a weak draft, and pretty much everyone on the board has a question mark, if I am a GM of one of the top 5 teams and Harden was on the board, I'd trade down and pick another wing. Guys like Christmas and Slaughter are going to be valuable picks in the second round.

BTW you are right, two games are extremely small samples, but these arent just any two games, those are two of the biggest games of his career. He just couldn't get his shot off.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> If this was the case, why did Harden pull a Houdini in the NCAA tourney, in the biggest games of his career?


did that stop eric gordon from having a good rookie year?


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I don't have an opinion on this matter, however I will say that these athletic tests often produce some strange results. *
> 
> Derrick Rose last year, for example, basically fell into the "good, but not great" category athletically. But how can anyone deny that he is the fastest end to end player in last year's draft? *
> 
> ...


I know I'm pulling this from page 1... 

Derrick Rose's combine numbers would have put him #1 in vertical (40 inches, tied with Johnny Flynn) and #2 in the 3/4 court sprint... I think that means he tested as a great athlete, and we saw it on the court.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> did that stop eric gordon from having a good rookie year?


Two different players, two different skill sets, besides wasn't Gordon struggling with injuries?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Two different players, two different skill sets, besides wasn't Gordon struggling with injuries?


i don't recall an injury though gordon struggled once kelvin sampson was fired.

and yes, i realize that they are two different player with two different skill sets. the point is he had a bad tournament. players can have bad tournaments or a couple of bad tournament games and go one to be good players in the nba. a couple of bad tournament games doesn't take away everything a player did during the regular season.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> i don't recall an injury though gordon struggled once kelvin sampson was fired.
> 
> and yes, i realize that they are two different player with two different skill sets. the point is he had a bad tournament. players can have bad tournaments or a couple of bad tournament games and go one to be good players in the nba. a couple of bad tournament games doesn't take away everything a player did during the regular season.


It was talked about going into the draft that he had some injury concerns. He missed a ton of games for the Clippers, anywhoo, Gordon is more likely to put his athleticism to use on the basketball court than Harden. His first step is much more dangerous and he's quicker than a lot of guys at the position. Harden doesnt play like that.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> It was talked about going into the draft that he had some injury concerns. He missed a ton of games for the Clippers, anywhoo, Gordon is more likely to put his athleticism to use on the basketball court than Harden. His first step is much more dangerous and he's quicker than a lot of guys at the position. Harden doesnt play like that.


i'm not comparing their games. to say they don't play alike has nothing to do with any point i have made.

and gordon played 78 games this season for the clippers.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

> i'm not comparing their games. to say they don't play alike has nothing to do with any point i have made.


Get used to HB's responses being presented like a counterpoint but having nothing to do with your point.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I know I'm pulling this from page 1...
> 
> Derrick Rose's combine numbers would have put him #1 in vertical (40 inches, tied with Johnny Flynn) and #2 in the 3/4 court sprint... I think that means he tested as a great athlete, and we saw it on the court.


Hmm, maybe not my best example then. I must be thinking about his agility test. Or maybe he was sort of middle of the pack last year (as opposed to this year)?

I just remember that Eric Gordon beat him on all physical aspects, which I thought was strange.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

sorry about post 39 I am not to great with the technical aspects of this stuff please delete #39


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I see some similarities between James Harden and Brandon Roy. I think it's the way they play the game. Both have excellent athleticism but not the biggest part of their game. I remember people saying Roy won't be successful in the league because of lack of athleticism. But, the comparison goes only as far as that. Roy is a better all-around player and have always showed superior leadership skills in college. On the other hand, Harden to me seems more like an Eric Gordon type, less explosive as a scorer but better decision maker.

I don't think he'll turn into a Brandon Roy. But I think it's possible for him to reach Ben Gordon level (third-tier SG, 18-20 ppg, 3-4 rpg, 3-4 apg)


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

RSP83 said:


> I see some similarities between James Harden and Brandon Roy. I think it's the way they play the game. Both have excellent athleticism but not the biggest part of their game. I remember people saying Roy won't be successful in the league because of lack of athleticism. But, the comparison goes only as far as that. Roy is a better all-around player and have always showed superior leadership skills in college. On the other hand, Harden to me seems more like an Eric Gordon type, less explosive as a scorer but better decision maker.
> 
> I don't think he'll turn into a Brandon Roy. But I think it's possible for him to reach Ben Gordon level (third-tier SG, 18-20 ppg, 3-4 rpg, 3-4 apg)


I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The thing that makes Harden so attractive to me is that he will be a very good all-around player and can play great D, both of which we are sorely lacking from BG.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> i'm not comparing their games. to say they don't play alike has nothing to do with any point i have made.
> 
> and gordon played 78 games this season for the clippers.


No but its such a blanket statement to say because one guy performed poorly in the tourney and excelled in the NBA means the other guy will do the same. Does the name Chris Taft ring a bell?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> No but its such a blanket statement to say because one guy performed poorly in the tourney and excelled in the NBA means the other guy will do the same. Does the name Chris Taft ring a bell?


you're using harden's tournament to suggest that he can't have success in the nba. i simply pointed out a case where that wasn't true. performance in the ncaa tournament doesn't tell you how good of a pro someone will be.

chris taft? how is he relevant to this discussion? i don't recall him having a great or bad tournament. he was a guy with great physical attributes who never put it together on the court. how does that relate to harden or this discussion?


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The thing that makes Harden so attractive to me is that he will be a very good all-around player and can play great D, both of which we are sorely lacking from BG.


I think at least he'll be an Eddie Jones.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Dude, Chris Taft was a highly touted prospect going into the draft, who had himself an awful tourney and dropped like a stone on draft night. Harden is also a highly touted prospect, though I doubt he's going to fall on draft night. I guess if you are going to use one guy who had a bad tourney and did well in the NBA, I might as well point out that the case isn't always true.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Taft had an awful regular season and got exposed. That is why he fell.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

He coasted, Taft was considered a lotto pick, it went to his head.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

HB said:


> Dude, Chris Taft was a highly touted prospect going into the draft, who had himself an awful tourney and dropped like a stone on draft night. Harden is also a highly touted prospect, though I doubt he's going to fall on draft night. I guess if you are going to use one guy who had a bad tourney and did well in the NBA, I might as well point out that the case isn't always true.


chris taft's season averages his last year - 13.3 points, 7.5 rebounds, 1.7 blocks, 58% shooting, 26 minutes.
chris taft's ncca tournament before entering the draft - 13 points, 12 rebounds, 2 blocks, 5-7 shooting, 26 minutes.

bad example. taft dropped not because he had a bad tournament but because people realized he wasn't really that good of a player. he was highly rated going into his sophomore season, but dropped throughout the year as people realized he just wasn't that good of a player and then did bad in workouts to further drop and land in the second round.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> i don't recall an injury though gordon struggled once kelvin sampson was fired.


I think he had a wrist injury that he carried throughout the season.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Taft also had a bad back. Brandon Roy is not a comparison to James Harden. You could watch Roy play and knew he would be special (and yes people like myself and rocketeer felt he would be, the only concerns were about how much his body could stand up to NBA pounding. It's obvious that Roy will not have another 10 years of all-star basketball in his body, but he should have another 6-7.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

I've wrote this before but, I was a fan of Harden but the tourney no-show was a real disappointment, specially since i saw that in person. For those who say he wasn't able to get his shot off or that he got locked down, I'm gonna have to disagree. From what i saw from the tourney games, he was just passive, too passive. In one of the games, he played Cuse so it wasn't like there was a man draped all over him, because they play that 2-3. I partly put some blame on their Coach Herb Sendek, cause i still don't know what the hell they were running out there. But mainly it was Harden being excessively passive. From what i saw, the only time he was aggressive was in the last 4 mins of the Temple game, Sendek let him handle and create and he got to the line for about 6 tries, and basically won them that game. 

I think with all that said, the guy has good game, he has a good shot, he has pretty good passing ability, he's a solid defender, and his size is fine. I do agree w/ HB that he doesn't show much athleticism in his game, he'll show a flash or two but not much. I think the reason why people knock him so much is because he's still considered a top 5-10 prospect, which is usually real big upside or terrific player in the NBA range. And he doesn't really project to be/have either. But you have to remember this is a weaker top of the draft. So he gets looked at like the red-headed step child of the top10 by many. 

I think Harden will be solid, nothing more nothing less. Good skills but lacks the aggressiveness, killer instinct, whatever you wanna call it, to be a really good or even GREAT player. 
Him being solid is a luxury many of the teams can afford actually. Look at teams like the Thunder, Wizards, Wolves, Raptors, they all got primary even secondary scorers, so he won't have too much pressure on him, and maybe he can excel. Only time will tell...as usual.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> So when you say he hasn't exhibited his athleticism in a clogge game i guess you are ignoring his effectiveness. It seems like you think his success is built around his skill but you are completeley ignoring his top-shelf athleticism (which is certainly a part of his game). I guess what you are saying is that he is an excellent athlete but just chooses to not use it in-game? yet he is still the best 2g in the draft. Well if what you are saying is true it seems like he would have the most potential in the draft.
> 
> *BTW the NCAA tourney was *two* games.
> 
> ...



He isn't a top shelf athlete, I watch as much college basketball as anyone on this site (sans HKF) and he isn't a top shelf athlete. He is a solid athlete but stop trying to make him out as the next LeBron in terms of athletic ability. He isn't even a top 10 athlete in this draft. Derozan, Griffin, Jennings, Lawson, Evans, Flynn, Terrance Williams, Derrick Brown, Chase Budinger, and Sam Young are all better athletes. I know this because I actually watched college basketball games, not because I rely on a combine to tell me who is a better athlete.


His success is built around his skill level. If he had Demar Derozans athletic ability he might challenge Blake Griffin for the #1 pick in the draft. He isn't an extraordinary athlete, it doesn't take that much to admit. Could he be a good NBA player? Sure but he is nothing more than an average athlete on the NBA level.


Also i'm not just basing this claim on two NCAA tournament games. I'm sure his 9 point, 4 rebound effort against IUPUI, his 4 point, 7 rebound effort against USC (compared to Derozans 22 and 8), and his 9 point, 4 rebound performance against Oregon State really re-enforce your claims that he is one of the best athletes in this draft. :whiteflag:


If he wins an NBA dunk contest i'll be the first to eat crow. I think he could be a solid NBA player, but he won't be anything special. Again if he becomes an all-star I will gladly eat crow, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Also i'm not just basing this claim on two NCAA tournament games. I'm sure his 9 point, 4 rebound effort against IUPUI, his 4 point, 7 rebound effort against USC (compared to Derozans 22 and 8), and his 9 point, 4 rebound performance against Oregon State really re-enforce your claims that he is one of the best athletes in this draft.
> 
> 
> If he wins an NBA dunk contest i'll be the first to eat crow. I think he could be a solid NBA player, but he won't be anything special. Again if he becomes an all-star I will gladly eat crow, I just don't see it happening.


those must be the games i saw, because i don't see it either; in fact, his game reminded me of adrian griffin; very deliberate, cerebral; in other words, quite slow.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> He isn't a top shelf athlete, I watch as much college basketball as anyone on this site (sans HKF) and he isn't a top shelf athlete. He is a solid athlete but stop trying to make him out as the next LeBron in terms of athletic ability. He isn't even a top 10 athlete in this draft. Derozan, Griffin, Jennings, Lawson, Evans, Flynn, Terrance Williams, Derrick Brown, Chase Budinger, and Sam Young are all better athletes. I know this because I actually watched college basketball games, not because I rely on a combine to tell me who is a better athlete.
> 
> 
> His success is built around his skill level. If he had Demar Derozans athletic ability he might challenge Blake Griffin for the #1 pick in the draft. He isn't an extraordinary athlete, it doesn't take that much to admit. Could he be a good NBA player? Sure but he is nothing more than an average athlete on the NBA level.
> ...


I never said he is a lebron type athlete.but he is certainly an above average athlete at his position in the NBA. the funny thing is your definition of athletic probably boils down to size, speed, and strength. If that is the case then he just tested better than anybody you mentioned. So how is he not a top ten athlete in the draft? Aside from that he was a better college basketball player you mentioned except for Griffin. 

And frankly I don't care if you watch college basketball games, because I do to, and before these combine results were released *I* was saying that Harden was a very good athlete while guys like you were telling me how terribly unathletic he was. Turns out he tested as an *extremely* good athlete. So now people like you have to make up ridiculous reasons why he is not a good athlete. In the end your reasons always come down to, "well i don't care about numbers, or performance, I havent seen him make a lot of cool dunks so I know he is not as good of an athlete as someone who has made a bunch of cool dunks"

The other interesting thing is that my opinion of him did not change after the combine results. However you guys are now all of a sudden changing your opinions. Before the combine I was hearing stuff like, " he is not athletic enough to play in the NBA, he has bust written all over him" and "He is a less athletic version of John Salmons" and now i am hearing things like he will be an average athlete in the NBA. So who is the person changing chaning their initial beliefs because of the combine?

Picking out games that Harden played bad in is ridiculous, all you have to do is look at season averages. Should I take the few bad Lebron games and highlight them to make an arguement that he is actually a bad NBA player? No, because that would make me look like an idiot. Much like you do by pointing out a few crappy Harden games when I know that he averaged 20 a game as a sophmore and 18 as a freshman and was very efficient. 

I think a lot of you guys are missing the point on my take on James Harden. I do not believe that he is going to be the next Lebron nor do I really care. But what the Bulls need is a legitamate 2g someone who can play great D and is versatile on offense. I believe Harden would fit perfectly in that role and because Many people believe that this is a weak draft. Thus, it would have been a good opportunity to trade up and take Harden. Turns out that he is now projected to go in the top three and is probably unatainable. But he would have been a long-term solution to our 2g needs and someone who could be a cheap upgrade over BG. However when i posted that everyone came out of the woodworks smashing Harden and his lack of athletic ability. Which happens all the time on this board because everyone has such a hard-on for "percieved" athleticism. You guys need to actually analyze a basketball player (which you are unable to do) and not just look at their sportcenter highlights, something 99% of basketball fans are incapable of doing.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> those must be the games i saw, because i don't see it either; in fact, his game reminded me of adrian griffin; very deliberate, cerebral; in other words, quite slow.


Funny that Adrian Griffin went undrafted and averaged 3 points as a freshman and less than 10 as a sophmore in college. 
Harden is projected as a top 3 pick after being a 19 year-old pac 10 player of the year award winner and first team all-american.
Otherwise spot on analysis.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But how are the Bulls supposed to get Harden by the way, when he's gone in the first 10 picks? I mean what kind of deal would be structured to move into that range.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'll just stand by my opinion and reserve the right to be wrong.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

HB said:


> But how are the Bulls supposed to get Harden by the way, when he's gone in the first 10 picks? I mean what kind of deal would be structured to move into that range.


That was not really the point but... as i mentioned a couple posts earlier, initially this was based on me suggesting we trade TT to memphis when they held the #6 pick and that we could throw in more if neccessary. The initial thread was titled: Memphis trade idea and 2009 offseason plan. You should be able to find it on page three. However i still believe we could pull it off if we were to package TT with something else. Maybe even a future 1st with TT (we might have to add more) to OKC for the number 3 (considering they don't have much on the inside). But IMO the only person I wouldn't trade is Rose everyone else should be on the block because we can add long-term cheap role players in this draft and sign or trade for an all-star pf by 2010-11. That way if Rose turns into a superstar than he will have a legitamate team around him.

If we keep only Noah and Rose and sign Bosh. Then just via this draft our lineup could easily look like this:

1.) Rose, Collison
2.) Harden
3.)
4.) Bosh, Blair/Hansborough
5.) Noah

That would leave us with a bunch of money to spend and whatever Value we could get from Deng, Hinrich, Salmons and whatever else we have that someone would find value in. Obviously we could get significant value back from all that available money and talent and another draft class, and in 2010-11 we could make a legitamate run at an NBA title. And have a team that we could keep together long-term and finally end rebuilding.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

So you're saying that Harden is much better than Tryus ? 

Obviously Harden is much better than Adrian Griffin but that is who Harden resembles the most. Good call on that Bullhitter.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Cager said:


> So you're saying that Harden is much better than Tryus ?
> 
> Obviously Harden is much better than Adrian Griffin but that is who Harden resembles the most. Good call on that Bullhitter.


:wtf: If he is much better than I don't really understand how it is a good comparison. But I guess you are now backing off of your "less athletic verion of John Salmons" comparison? comparing Harden to Griffin is ridiculous. Nbadraft.net which is a lot more credible than you guys compares him to Manu and B Roy. If we _have_ to make a comparison then lets just stick with that for now. 

But to answer your question; Yes I do believe Harden will be a much better player than TT. But if you are looking at the long-term future of the bulls what role does TT play? We have pretty much committed ourselves to signing a Bosh/Amare type player who should not be playing center and obviously TT cannot play center or SF. So if we are projecting TT as the bulls backup 4 and an expensive one at that especially if we have to resign him. Why then should we hold onto him now? Plus lets face it TT has been an underachiever for a long time at some point you gotta pull the plug and if we could find a way to get back a guy that fits in perfect with the bulls long-term needs (Harden) then I say do it.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> I never said he is a lebron type athlete.but he is certainly an above average athlete at his position in the NBA. the funny thing is your definition of athletic probably boils down to size, speed, and strength. If that is the case then he just tested better than anybody you mentioned. So how is he not a top ten athlete in the draft? Aside from that he was a better college basketball player you mentioned except for Griffin.
> 
> And frankly I don't care if you watch college basketball games, because I do to, and before these combine results were released *I* was saying that Harden was a very good athlete while guys like you were telling me how terribly unathletic he was. Turns out he tested as an *extremely* good athlete. So now people like you have to make up ridiculous reasons why he is not a good athlete. In the end your reasons always come down to, "well i don't care about numbers, or performance, I havent seen him make a lot of cool dunks so I know he is not as good of an athlete as someone who has made a bunch of cool dunks"
> 
> ...



I read the first paragraph or so and thats all I needed to see. Give me a break dude i'm not saying he isn't a good athlete because he isn't throwing down jaw dropping dunks or anything highlight reel worthy. He isn't a good athlete because I have seen him struggle to beat guys off the dribble, and struggle to create his own shot at times during the season. He isn't a good "in-game" athlete. Most of the respected basketbal minds here who saw him play multiple times in college can agree with that statement. He may possess the ability but I never saw anything of the sort on a consistent basis at ASU. I don't know why it's that hard to get through to you. If you think he could be the long-term solution for the 2 spot for Chicago more power to you. It won't be because of his "athletic ability" though. He is a good defender (you don't need to be a terrific athlete to be this) because he plays great fundamental defense. He has a nice set of offensive skills, and could be a pretty solid player in the NBA. In terms of athletic ability in actual basketball games, he isn't that great. He has his moments but nothing that sticks out. 


People here can't analyze basketball players? :laugh: Just because we don't share the same hard-on you have for Harden doesn't mean we can't analyze and breakdown individual skills of a basketball player. Harden posted great combine numbers, outstanding. I still haven't seen this excellent athleticism on a consistent basis in actual basketball games. Good Grief man just because someone doesn't have the same opinion doesn't mean you have to get all critical and defensive, but again more power to ya.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> I read the first paragraph or so and thats all I needed to see. Give me a break dude i'm not saying he isn't a good athlete because he isn't throwing down jaw dropping dunks or anything highlight reel worthy. He isn't a good athlete because I have seen him struggle to beat guys off the dribble, and struggle to create his own shot at times during the season. He isn't a good "in-game" athlete. Most of the respected basketbal minds here who saw him play multiple times in college can agree with that statement. He may possess the ability but I never saw anything of the sort on a consistent basis at ASU. I don't know why it's that hard to get through to you. If you think he could be the long-term solution for the 2 spot for Chicago more power to you. It won't be because of his "athletic ability" though. He is a good defender (you don't need to be a terrific athlete to be this) because he plays great fundamental defense. He has a nice set of offensive skills, and could be a pretty solid player in the NBA. In terms of athletic ability in actual basketball games, he isn't that great. He has his moments but nothing that sticks out.
> 
> 
> People here can't analyze basketball players? :laugh: Just because we don't share the same hard-on you have for Harden doesn't mean we can't analyze and breakdown individual skills of a basketball player. Harden posted great combine numbers, outstanding. I still haven't seen this excellent athleticism on a consistent basis in actual basketball games. Good Grief man just because someone doesn't have the same opinion doesn't mean you have to get all critical and defensive, but again more power to ya.


First of all thanks for giving me more power.



> He isn't a good athlete because I have seen him struggle to beat guys off the dribble, and struggle to create his own shot at times during the season. He isn't a good "in-game" athlete.


Once again....! If he is not able to beat people off of the dribble or create his own shot.... How is he able to average 20 a game and be extremely efficient (pac-10 player of the year/ first team all-american) as a sophmore in college? If you actually did watch Harden play, you would notice that, in fact, he routinely beats people off the dribble and finishes inside. Which is why he shoots such a high percentage of the field.

If I understand your arguement correctly it is this.... That although Harden is extremely athletic (37 inch vert, great speed, good size, great strength etc..) that he doesn't actually use his natural athleticism. Instead he somehow ignores his athleticism to instead rely solely on other attributes to be a sophmore first team all-american. And that you would prefer a guy who is a little worse athletically (Derozan) but utilizes his athleticism more to be a less effective college basketball player. This is pretty much your arguement right?

This is why you guys who share in this ridiculous assesment have completely lost credibility in my eyes. It isn't even about Harden anymore it is about trying to show you guys just how misguided your basketball minds are so that hopefully you don't spread this nonsense to people who would actually listen to you. I guess what I am trying to do is improve the quality of basketball intelligence one Bulls board poster at a time. Lets all pray for a ripple effect!


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> First of all thanks for giving me more power.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all if you believe that Harden is more athletic than Derozan there is no point having a discussion with you. 


No my argument is Harden is skilled enough on the college level that he doesn't need world class athletic ability to score 20 a game. I never said he was Larry Bird, but he isn't a super athlete when it comes to athletic ability. Harden has more basketball skill which is why he is more effective than Derozan. Derozan has more athletic ability, but doesn't possess the skill level Harden does which is why he isn't as effective. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> First of all if you believe that Harden is more athletic than Derozan there is no point having a discussion with you.
> 
> 
> No my argument is Harden is skilled enough on the college level that he doesn't need world class athletic ability to score 20 a game. I never said he was Larry Bird, but he isn't a super athlete when it comes to athletic ability. Harden has more basketball skill which is why he is more effective than Derozan. Derozan has more athletic ability, but doesn't possess the skill level Harden does which is why he isn't as effective. It really isn't that hard of a concept to grasp.


Except for the obvious fact that Harden tested as more athletic than derozan. (consult post #1.) 
*Where are the facts to back up your arguement?* Because all the numbers and common sense are on my side.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

I would think that anyone who has watched both play in an actual basketball game would tell you Derozan is more athletic. Most don't need combine numbers to form our opinions for us.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

bball2223 said:


> I would think that anyone who has watched both play in an actual basketball game would tell you Derozan is more athletic. Most don't need combine numbers to form our opinions for us.


harden tested as more athletic than derozan which can't really be disputed, but isn't really all that meaningful. everyone knows that derozan is a better athlete.

harden's combine was important because it exposed the biggest myth about harden. people constantly harped on how unathletic and undersized he was but as it turns out neither of those are true. the combine showed that harden does have the athleticism to go along with his skills which definitely should help his game translate to the next level.

harden doesn't have superstar potential but he's one of only 3 players i'd really expect to come close to being allstar caliber players out of this draft(the other two being griffin and maybe rubio. i really wouldn't be shocked if this draft had no allstars though).


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

rocketeer said:


> harden tested as more athletic than derozan which can't really be disputed, but isn't really all that meaningful. *everyone knows that derozan is a better athlete.*



There it is for you CaseyRH. Rocketeer has been a supporter of Harden all season long too.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> I would think that anyone who has watched both play in an actual basketball game would tell you Derozan is more athletic. Most don't need combine numbers to form our opinions for us.


As i stated earlier I knew Harden was a great athlete before the combine which is documented in the thread titled: Memphis trade idea and 2009 offseason plan.

The combine merely confirmed my initial assesment but conflicts with your "expert" opinion. You got any other ridiculous opinions that you would like me to shoot down with facts (not opinion)?


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

No I would not like to argue anything further on this topic. Your obviously a Harden stan so this discussion is going nowhere.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> harden tested as more athletic than derozan which can't really be disputed, but isn't really all that meaningful. everyone knows that derozan is a better athlete.


Why is it not meaningful? 
How is it that you guys continually dispute *facts* with blanket statements that are based on nothing but _your_
opinion?
Now maybe I could understand if you were comparing Harden to someone who was actually better than him but instead you are comparing him to someone who is actually worse than him. 
Isn't possible that one of the things that makes Harden better than Derozan is that he is actually a superior athlete to him when strength, speed, and agility are factored in, and that you guys are just not capable of spotting the little things that tip off his superior athleticism?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> No I would not like to argue anything further on this topic.


Most sense you have made this whole time!


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Why is it not meaningful?
> How is it that you guys continually dispute *facts* with blanket statements that are based on nothing but _your_
> opinion?


Because combine numbers don't always translate to the basketball court during actual games. Oh and for the record Draftexpress has Derozan with a higher max vertical (38.5" to Hardens 37" this is with a step) than Harden. Your right though there is more situations in whch a no-step vertical (where Harden topped Derozan) is used in an actual basketball game then jumping on the move. I respect you being a James Harden ********* (we'll pretend he said "fan") but you can't possibly convince anyone who has watched both in the course of an actual basketball game that Harden is more athletic than Derozan. I don't need combine numbers to help me decide that, I can tell that with my own eyes.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> Because combine numbers don't always translate to the basketball court during actual games. Oh and for the record Draftexpress has Derozan with a higher max vertical (38.5" to Hardens 37" this is with a step) than Harden. Your right though there is more situations in whch a no-step vertical (where Harden topped Derozan) is used in an actual basketball game then jumping on the move. I respect you being a James Harden ********* (we'll pretend he said "fan") but you can't possibly convince anyone who has watched both in the course of an actual basketball game that Harden is more athletic than Derozan. I don't need combine numbers to help me decide that, I can tell that with my own eyes.


To be fair, it seems like either caseyrh is right in that your definition of "athletic" is "fancy dunks/highlight plays" or Harden made an incredible amount of covered shots this year...

Sometimes guys are deceptively quick... maybe he's beating people off the dribble, is athletic, but just makes it look easy? I honestly haven't seen more than a few minutes of him.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> Why is it not meaningful?
> How is it that you guys continually dispute *facts* with blanket statements that are based on nothing but _your_
> opinion?
> Now maybe I could understand if you were comparing Harden to someone who was actually better than him but instead you are comparing him to someone who is actually worse than him.
> Isn't possible that one of the things that makes Harden better than Derozan is that he is actually a superior athlete to him when strength, speed, and agility are factored in, and that you guys are just not capable of spotting the little things that tip off his superior athleticism?


check dwight howard's combine numbers. just look through combine numbers in general. sometimes tremendous athletes just don't test well.

harden testing better than derozan is a fact. harden being a better athlete than derozan is not a fact. that is your opinion and you are in a very small minority of people who believe it.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Dornado said:


> To be fair, it seems like either caseyrh is right in that your definition of "athletic" is "fancy dunks/highlight plays" or Harden made an incredible amount of covered shots this year...
> 
> Sometimes guys are deceptively quick... maybe he's beating people off the dribble, is athletic, but just makes it look easy? I honestly haven't seen more than a few minutes of him.




I never called Harden a bad athlete. I'm not a big fan of people who use the combine to justify their opinions of players (this goes for the NFL and the NBA), that's all. Harden put up great combine numbers, but I still haven't seen him as a better athlete in game situations than I have seen out of Derozan. He can think how he wants, and i'll think how I want to. I just don't think combine numbers are the end all, be all in determining a players athletic anility in game situations.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> I never called Harden a bad athlete. I'm not a big fan of people who use the combine to justify their opinions of players (this goes for the *NFL and the NBA*), that's all. Harden put up great combine numbers, but I still haven't seen him as a better athlete in game situations than I have seen out of Derozan. He can think how he wants, and i'll think how I want to. I just don't think combine numbers are the end all, be all in determining a players athletic anility in game situations.


Yeah, I think it's particularly obvious in the NFL, where guys are totally different on the field in pads...

Which always makes me wonder why they don't make guys run the 40 in pads and a helmet...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> I never called Harden a bad athlete. I'm not a big fan of people who use the combine to justify their opinions of players (this goes for the NFL and the NBA), that's all. Harden put up great combine numbers, but I still haven't seen him as a better athlete in game situations than I have seen out of Derozan. He can think how he wants, and i'll think how I want to. I just don't think combine numbers are the end all, be all in determining a players athletic anility in game situations.


:thinking2:
Combine numbers only tell how "athletic" someone is. It only measures pure athletic ability. I don't pay much attention to them. Instead I pay more attention to actuall *performance* something that Harden has excelled at to the tune of being pac-10 player of the year, and a first team all american. However I was forced to defend Harden's *athleticism*, which I have done with irrefutable stats. 

But it is interesting that your top priority is athleticism (over performance) and yet you ignore the combine.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> check dwight howard's combine numbers. just look through combine numbers in general. sometimes tremendous athletes just don't test well.



:wtf: Dwight Howard didn't test well?
Only three people (all three were in the 2006 Draft) had a higher max vertical reach than him in the last 10 years. (all were within an inch). On top of that he ran his sprint in 3.14 (compared to Derozan's 3.31 and Griffin's 3.27) and had an excellent agility score also. I didn't crunch the numbers on the sprint but I am guessing you wont find a center in the 10 years of Data on Draft express that tested better than him. Another great arguement :uhoh:



> harden testing better than derozan is a fact. harden being a better athlete than derozan is not a fact. that is your opinion and you are in a very small minority of people who believe it


My _opinion_ is based on *facts*. What is your majority opinion based on, emotions and feelings?



> sometimes tremendous athletes just don't test well.


This thread is about a "bad" athlete testing like a tremendous athlete. Is that something that you would expect to happen?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

caseyrh said:


> :wtf: Dwight Howard didn't test well?
> Only three people (all three were in the 2006 Draft) had a higher max vertical reach than him in the last 10 years. (all were within an inch). On top of that he ran his sprint in 3.14 (compared to Derozan's 3.31 and Griffin's 3.27) and had an excellent agility score also. I didn't crunch the numbers on the sprint but I am guessing you wont find a center in the 10 years of Data on Draft express that tested better than him. Another great arguement :uhoh:


wow, really? his max vert reach? you mean a huge guy had a high max vert reach? shocking. dwight's max vert was 35.5 which is lower than harden's. draftexpress ranked him 28th in his own draft from the combine results. get that bull**** out of here that he tested well.



> My _opinion_ is based on *facts*. What is your majority opinion based on, emotions and feelings?


if you're the only person who believes what you believe, there probably is a reason. i've been the biggest harden backer on this message board. he's not as athletic as derozan. he is a better basketball player than derozan.



> This thread is about a "bad" athlete testing like a tremendous athlete. Is that something that you would expect to happen?


he didn't even test like a tremendous athlete. good athlete? sure. but certainly nothing special on the nba level. his results were surprising because most expected him to test out poorly(i didn't). he's a good but not great athlete. not reason to overstate it or pretend that it's something it isn't.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> But it is interesting that your top priority is athleticism (over performance) and yet you ignore the combine.



:no:


I never said athleticism was my top priority. You don't win arguments by putting words in peoples mouths.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Funny that Adrian Griffin went undrafted and averaged 3 points as a freshman and less than 10 as a sophmore in college.
> Harden is projected as a top 3 pick after being a 19 year-old pac 10 player of the year award winner and first team all-american.
> Otherwise spot on analysis.


where adrian griffin was drafted is totally irrelevant to my assertion about the two players similarity in *style of play*; if you feel harden is going to be a great player in the league, fine; i don't. his college and combine stats are only an indicator of his potential. but my counter to that is simply that his stats for his career were put up against mostly teenagers, and players who have 0 chance of becoming nba players. does that mean he won't make it? it quite certainly doesn't. but there are a great many athletic players in the league who know the game inside out, backward and forward and as such i believe his "deliberate" style won't transform well for him as an offensive player. as well, the athleticism you so fervently defend is meaningless in the context of a combine. how his athleticism is *applied* in _game situations_ is much more of an indicator of his actual level of athleticism. the doubters as well as myself don't see the athletcism he was able to display in a controlled setting as part of his actual game; derozan by comparison, though not as complete a player, does apply his athletcism in a much more visual way, which is likely why derozan is "perceived" as more athletic.

personally, i don't think derozan is ready for the pros, particularly the mental part, and unless the breaks fall his way regarding playing time and development (remember, he's not going to be on a *good* team), he could easily fall through the cracks (he's not even close to what harold "baby jordan" miner was, another USC athletic prodigy). harden......imo, his style just doesn't seem to be the type that's going to be impactful in the league. maybe he's got enough game to adjust his style and still be good, but i'll have to see it to believe it.


----------



## Rather Unique (Aug 26, 2005)

Caseyrh, i don't think anyone is saying that Harden is not athletic at all, and that Derozan is an athletic specimen never seen by this world. 

Simply put, Derozan plays a more athletic game on the court than Harden, not to be cliche and all that but Derozan right now plays above the rim, like a high flyer for offensive boards, dunks, if he takes some 1 off the dribble its all straight speed. Harden plays more of a ground game, sure he'll throw one down every once in a while, and his first step can be seen as "athletic" but he'll post a smaller guard, he uses body position, angles, to get good shots in the lane, these are things that are not much associated with athleticsm, where as Derozan is gonna try to win off the dribble w/ mostly speed and quickness and fly over his defender. Hence Harden's game is not as "athletic" as Derozan's. 

Disclaimer: before you go off, i'm not sayin Harden doesn't use his speed or quickness, or even leaping ability, he just doesn't display it as often as Derozan, because of the other afformentioned skills he has.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> wow, really? his max vert reach? you mean a huge guy had a high max vert reach? shocking. dwight's max vert was 35.5 which is lower than harden's. draftexpress ranked him 28th in his own draft from the combine results. get that bull**** out of here that he tested well.


So you expect 6'10.5 big strong center to jump as high as a 6' little pg? If you can't understand that the most important thing (when considering jumping ability) is how high basketball players can reach than you have confirmed your low basketball IQ. I guess you would rather be a 6' tall pg with a 40 inch vert than a 6'10.5 beast with a 35.5 inch vert. Apparently you do not understand that the taller a human being is, the tougher it is for them to run fast, jump high, bench press, be agile, etc... Is it any surprise to you that the average height w/shoes of the top athlete in all drafts (on draft express) is 6'3? Dwight Howard tested phenomenally when you factor in size. 
You really have lost any credibility you might have had.



> if you're the only person who believes what you believe, there probably is a *reason*. i've been the biggest harden backer on this message board. he's not as athletic as derozan. he is a better basketball player than derozan.


Interesting how you just aren't able to find that reason. So you think you have some credibility evaluating athletes because you happen to like Harden? Also please refer me to the topics where you are defending Harden I would like to read what you had to say about him before the combine results were released.



> he didn't even test like a tremendous athlete. good athlete? sure. but certainly nothing special on the nba level. his results were surprising because most expected him to test out poorly(i didn't). he's a good but not great athlete. not reason to overstate it or pretend that it's something it isn't.


He definately did test tremendously. Look at the numbers, when you combine, size, speed, and strength he was probably top five in his entire draft. You will have a tough time finding someone with his pedigree that tested as well as him. 
His results were surprising to people like you. Not to me. (Which is documented)
But even the fact that someone finally admits that he is a "good" athlete means I am finally getting into your thick heads. Because before the combine it was all about Harden being a terrible athlete.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

bball2223 said:


> :no:
> 
> 
> I never said athleticism was my top priority. You don't win arguments by putting words in peoples mouths.


If it is not athleticism than.... what is it? You certainly don't care much about performance, or else you would a huge Harden supporter like me.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> the athleticism you so fervently defend is meaningless in the context of a combine. how his athleticism is *applied* in _game situations_ is much more of an indicator of his actual level of athleticism.


His athleticism was applied in-game to the tune of being a first team-all american (best at his position in the country) as a sophmore. Where do you guys come up with this ridiculous arguement???? 

This line of BS is such a cop out. All of the data points to the direct opposite of this ridiculous assesment. 

Now like I have said countless times... even if this arguement made some sense (which it doesn't) it would only work to describe someone who tested as a great athlete but had a low performance level. It certainly does not describe someone who tested as a very good athlete *and* performend as the top athlete.

Why don't you guys just come out and say that *you judge athleticism based on highlight reel dunks *and whoever has the most highlight dunks or the coolest dunks is who you guys determine to be the best athlete. Becasuse it is clearly the case here.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

rocketeer said:


> harden tested as more athletic than derozan which can't really be disputed, but isn't really all that meaningful. everyone knows that derozan is a better athlete.
> 
> harden's combine was important because it exposed the biggest myth about harden. people constantly harped on how unathletic and undersized he was but as it turns out neither of those are true. the combine showed that harden does have the athleticism to go along with his skills which definitely should help his game translate to the next level.
> 
> harden doesn't have superstar potential but he's one of only 3 players i'd really expect to come close to being allstar caliber players out of this draft(the other two being griffin and maybe rubio. i really wouldn't be shocked if this draft had no allstars though).


I forgot Rubio was even in this draft. I take back my earlier assessment of this draft being as bad as 2000.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> His athleticism was applied in-game to the tune of being a first team-all american (best at his position in the country) as a sophmore. Where do you guys come up with this ridiculous arguement????


:woot:whooop de damn doo....he was first team all-american....does that mean he's a lock to be a great pro? i'll be surprised if more than 5-7 of these guys end up being even rotation players. mullens, budinger, clark....all these guys are huge question marks; busts in waiting..... rubio can't shoot, jennings can't play any style outside of "and 1", thabeet gets punked multiple times by a *6'5"* power forward....the list goes on and on.

cause, you can go look up the stats (since you believe them to be irrefutable) for all the busts that have been drafted top 5 or wherever harden will end up. you like him, i don't (i actually don't care one way or the other since he's not on the bulls radar), i hope for your sake he makes it, cause if he doesn't your career as a scout will die here on the internet......:tonbricks:

signed: the harden hater.....:evil:


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> :woot:whooop de damn doo....he was first team all-american....does that mean he's a lock to be a great pro? i'll be surprised if more than 5-7 of these guys end up being even rotation players. mullens, budinger, clark....all these guys are huge question marks; busts in waiting..... rubio can't shoot, jennings can't play any style outside of "and 1", thabeet gets punked multiple times by a *6'5"* power forward....the list goes on and on.
> 
> cause, you can go look up the stats (since you believe them to be irrefutable) for all the busts that have been drafted top 5 or wherever harden will end up. you like him, i don't (i actually don't care one way or the other since he's not on the bulls radar), i hope for your sake he makes it, cause if he doesn't your career as a scout will die here on the internet......:tonbricks:
> 
> signed: the harden hater.....:evil:


You ignore valid points (backed up by facts) and common sense. 
I never said he will be great all I said is that he will a good, versatile, 2-way player, and a cheaper upgrade over BG. You don't need to be great to be an upgrade over BG.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> You don't need to be great to be an upgrade over BG.


you had to go there........:frenchy:

i didn't "ignore" anything; i said he was slow, that's what i see. you got a stat for why he plays so goddamn slow?

you said his combine stats show he's "athletic"; i stated his athleticism ISN'T part of the way he plays ball....

now here you come with this other bs; what does gordon have to do with harden? harden hasn't accomplished jacks**t yet, but you keep defending him like he's going to be something other than a DECENT pro baller, IF that. are you his agent? harden will be lucky to even PLAY in his first year; that is, unless his team absolutely sucks balls which is highly likely given where you project him as going; think he's good enough to keep a lottery team from stinking up the lower echelon of the nba......i don't.

what is it 5 years, and the bulls are still "upgrading" their 2 spot....

f**k james harden; *and* your defense of him.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> If it is not athleticism than.... what is it? You certainly don't care much about performance, or else you would a huge Harden supporter like me.



Where are you getting this from? We have been arguing about athletic ability the whole time, and I was arguing that Derozan has more athletic ability. Of course I care about performance, but that wasn't the discussion we were having. I have said *many* times Harden has a *good set of skills *, and I expect him to be a solid-pretty good NBA player. Plus who says I'm not a Harden supporter? I wish the best for any player, I just tell it like it is. If you want to continue discussing this i'm all for it, but quit putting words in my mouth.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> i said he was slow, that's what i see. you got a stat for why he plays so goddamn slow?


Unfortunately i don't have a stat supporting your claim that he plays slow. However I do have a stat, (his combine sprint speed of 3.13) that says that he is fast, and I have performance numbers suggesting that he has no problem getting by defenders 20 ppg, 49%fg and other facts suggesting he is not slow; pac 10 player of the year, first team all american, 2.1 steals per game. But I wonder if you can find a stat that supports your claim that he plays slow?



> i stated his athleticism ISN'T part of the way he plays ball....


:wtf: How is that even possible? How can you be very athletic *and* be an extremely successful athlete and yet have no correlation between the two? How do you guys come up with this nonsense? Have you ever played basketball?



> what does gordon have to do with harden?


Once again the whole reason I brought up Harden's name was because I felt that he would be a great fit for the Bulls and that we should let BG go. I am not going to go into my whole *hypotheticall* scenario again but look it up if you are intereted.



> what is it 5 years, and the bulls are still "upgrading" their 2 spot


Unfortunately, no... It has been five years without upgrading there 2 spot. And now we might be considering paying upwards of 10 mil for the same old one dimensional 2g at a time when we need money the most.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> :wtf: How is that even possible? How can you be athletic and extremely successful and not have no correlation between the two? How do you guys come up with this nonsense? Have you ever played basketball?



Ever heard of Larry Bird? Extremely successful basketball player, but an awful athlete in terms of athletic ability.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

:thinking2:


bball2223 said:


> Ever heard of Larry Bird? Extremely successful basketball player, but an awful athlete in terms of athletic ability.


What does that have to do with anything? Yeah Larry Bird was extremely succesful without being able to jump high or run fast. But Harden does jump high and run fast so how does that defend your opinion that Harden doesn't use his athleticism in-game. What are you even talking about? :whoknows:
I am the last person to think running _really_ fast and jumping _really_ high is a prerequisite to being good basketball player. I believe a players basketball IQ, skill, size, are the 3 most important things with athleticism being a distant fourth. However, in order to knock Harden, people like Cager and the Krakken said that Harden was not athletic and because of that would be a bust. And people like you who think he does not use his athleticism "in-game:thinking2:" that need to learn from Larry Bird.

This feels like 2003 all over again. when everyone was attacking me for saying that Hinrich was going to be a much better pro than Pietrus. People on here are always blinded by highlight dunks.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> This feels like 2003 all over again. when everyone was attacking me for saying that Hinrich was going to be a much better pro than Pietrus. People on here are always blinded by highlight dunks


hinrich IS a better player than pietrus.....and by much; it's irrelevant to harden.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> hinrich IS a better player than pietrus.....and by much; it's irrelevant to harden.


I know.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> f**k james harden; *and* your defense of him.


Internet Toughguy:boxing:


----------

