# Brandon Roy: 41 inch one-step vertical jump, a legit 6' 6" in shoes



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1316



> Roy reportedly had just a decent workout for a player who most consider a lock to be picked in the top 10. He did extremely well on the vertical leap test, hitting 41 inches off of one step. The source went on to rave about the Washington star’s jumpshot, stating “His jumpshot is really pretty. Its great looking, he’s got a high and quick release, and it’s really effective. His pull-up is exactly the same. He doesn’t fade and he has great control. The whole thing is pretty.” Roy also measured out at 6’6 in shoes, and is apparently a bit longer than he looks, coming in with a 6’9 wingspan. Shooting and leaping aside, everything else seemed to be pretty average for Brandon. He didn’t stand out in the one on one drills, and seemed to struggle grasping the triangle offense.


He worked out for the Lakers? Hmm, I wonder how they pulled that off. Anyway, I'm not surprised that Brandon Roy is already showing signs of testing out to be a better athlete than anticipated. The only other athletic testing skill I consider of great importance is the lateral quickness drill, and I will wait to hear back on that one after Orlando, where I assume he will go and test, although he's not on the list right now.

I'm happy he's a legit 6' 6" in shoes. That's good size, and a 6' 9" is a good wingspan for a player of his size, though surely not as freakish as some will be. I don't want to make too much of the vertical leap, but a lot of people are suggesting that Brandon is not a good enough athlete to justify a high pick. This stat does not validate him as a prospect, but it's another fact suggesting he has what it takes to compete at the next level.

Still, what our eyes tell us from observing him play is important. Roy doesn't make a habit of dunking on people, and I don't expect him to start doing it all the time in the league if he didn't do it much in college. I believe Dwyane Wade only tested as having a 36 inch vertical, if I remember correctly (that might have been without a step - not sure). Dunking is a state of mind, and honestly I'd feel a little better about Roy as a prospect if he did it more often. Dunkers get to the free throw line, get high percentage shots, and intimidate opponents.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Before you posted that link, the only "potential" flaws I saw in Roy were his athleticism and his size. Now, assuming those measurements are legit, we can't even really say those are weaknesses anymore.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Sheesh.

He's CLEARLY our answer for the backcourt help we need.

I just think we need frontcourt help way more.

Some moves have to be made to snag Roy AS WELL AS one of the other big 3.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I think we now have to think about four different players at #2, Roy/Gordon/Hinrich is just so perfect, we'll shore up the frontline with next years pick and this years money. We would also be able to trade Duhon with the 16 to move up. We are not going to be contenders next year, but we will be a lot better. Pax has to take the best player even if it's Roy.

I think either Roy or TT will fall to 6, so if the Wolves would bite at

Duhon, 16 for 6 

we could conceivably get Roy and one of the 3, but I doubt it, Boston or Houston is more likley but that wouldn't net us on of the big 3, Patrick Obryant maybe.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I think either Roy or TT will fall to 6, so if the Wolves would bite at
> 
> Duhon, 16 for 6


As it stands now (on mocks) and from my opinion, Roy would be unlucky to fall out of the top 4. Thomas might, but I'm not so confident as Atlanta is before that Wolves pick.

As for the deal it would probably take Deng instead. I would still pull the trigger, we do have Nocioni on the wing and can easily get someone like Harrington in FA. 
Though even if Thomas is gone, we could easily select Gay aswell.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1316
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't Luke Jackson have a huge vertical leap? And wasn't Kirk supposedly as quick as TJ Ford? I'm a bit leary of the meaning of those tests, although it is good to see him measure out at 6'6".


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

Guys, keep in mind, a one-step vertical leap is different than the "normal" vertical leap we always talk about. I remember someone mentioning it in an article about Maurice Ager last week that they often test both. A normal vertical leap is when they jump off two feet without any steps and, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that's the number that's always thrown around as a player's "vertical leap."

My guess is Roy's actual vertical leap is somewhere around 35" or so. That's still good, but 41" would be ridiculous for a guy whose athelticism isn't really considered one of his stregths.

As far as the height, I am shocked. I swear he does NOT look that tall on tv. If true, though, that's huge because that was really the only thing that seemed like a weakness to me. I still don't want him with our pick, but if we were trade down a few spots, I would be happy coming away with him.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

His reach is pretty poor for his height.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> Guys, keep in mind, a one-step vertical leap is different than the "normal" vertical leap we always talk about. I remember someone mentioning it in an article about Maurice Ager last week that they often test both. A normal vertical leap is when they jump off two feet without any steps and, someone correct me if I'm wrong, that's the number that's always thrown around as a player's "vertical leap."
> 
> My guess is Roy's actual vertical leap is somewhere around 35" or so. That's still good, but 41" would be ridiculous for a guy whose athelticism isn't really considered one of his stregths.
> 
> As far as the height, I am shocked. I swear he does NOT look that tall on tv. If true, though, that's huge because that was really the only thing that seemed like a weakness to me. I still don't want him with our pick, but if we were trade down a few spots, I would be happy coming away with him.



i agree about the vertical, point is he really doesnt play above the rim, he's very much under control with a high basketball IQ, i have watched him play on and off since highschool and other than a time when he seemed to be injury prone he's been an exceptional player. to me he's not the dynamic player that you want with a top 4 pick but in a need draft he could somehow sneak in there. i like him better than a rudy gay but i dont see him cracking the top 4 of bargnani,aldridge,morrison and thomas.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

His vertical leap is impressive, but Luke Jackson has a better vertical leap than Andre Iguodala. He's not an above-the-rim type player. 6'6" is about where I expected. He's going to be very, very solid.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Like A Breath said:


> His vertical leap is impressive, but Luke Jackson has a better vertical leap than Andre Iguodala. He's not an above-the-rim type player. 6'6" is about where I expected. He's going to be very, very solid.


Agree completely.



From the scouting report said:


> He didn’t stand out in the one on one drills


There's vertical. And there is raw explosiveness to the hole. A player can have the latter, not the former. 

-----

If Pax uses every last penny of his cap space for bigs and signs Roy, I will be very happy. I still see him getting a big at #2.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> There's vertical. And there is raw explosiveness to the hole. A player can have the latter, not the former.


Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (not trying to be critical of his athleticism, just trying to give a balanced argument). Speed/quickness/explosiveness is probably the single most important aspect of NBA-level athleticism, moreso than vertical leap. Also, how _quick_ a player leaps is more important than how _high_ he leaps. 



> If Pax uses every last penny of his cap space for bigs and signs Roy, I will be very happy. I still see him getting a big at #2.


Ditto. Especially considering that the draft comes first, it'd be a huge risk for our frontcourt if we assume we'll land good bigs in free agency. It'd sure be nice if Roy was available at #16 though.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Yeah, I was thinking the same thing (not trying to be critical of his athleticism, just trying to give a balanced argument). Speed/quickness/explosiveness is probably the single most important aspect of NBA-level athleticism, moreso than vertical leap. Also, how _quick_ a player leaps is more important than how _high_ he leaps.


I agree with all this. However, as a Brandon Roy fan, it's good he didn't come up with a weak vertical jump.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I love this ****.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Bqbi0Y9TE&search=brandon roy

edit: This, by the way, is yet another public service announcement on why you have to dunk when you have a breakaway.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2KsNTVAUpA&search=brandon roy

There's a seriously nice Roy in-air rebound and dunk at the 1:23 spot. The video here isn't very clear, except it's pretty easy to recognize when it's Little Nate that's dunking.

The steal under the basket at 2:05 is indicative of the kind of cheap points Roy gets by being such a crafty defender. He's no Pippen on D, but he can lull you to sleep and then sneak up on you when you're not expecting it. We don't have any crafty defenders like that.

And you've gotta love the clutchness at 3:14. Look at that adjustment in the air. Crafty.

Somewhere, Raftery is screaming: "ONIONS!"


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> how _quick_ a player leaps is more important than how _high_ he leaps.


Doesn't quick-leaping translate to leaping height? If you're indicating quick-leaping as being able to leap high using more calves than quads then that's anothoer story (and a different drill). As far as I'm concerned, a baseball player who can throw a 100 mph fastball can throw a baseball farther than one who can only throw 80 mph.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TwinkieTowers said:


> Doesn't quick-leaping translate to leaping height? If you're indicating quick-leaping as being able to leap high using more calves than quads then that's anothoer story (and a different drill). As far as I'm concerned, a baseball player who can throw a 100 mph fastball can throw a baseball farther than one who can only throw 80 mph.


I think you misunderstood. By "quick leaper" I mean someone who can get off the ground quicker, as in a quick muscle-reaction time. There are some very good leapers out there, but if it takes a long set of motions to enter your leap in the course of a basketball game, the leap can easily be rendered useless. Dennis Rodman was probably one of the quickest leapers I've ever seen; he didn't have the highest vertical in the world (especially in his later years) but his body just reacted so quickly that he was an amazing rebounder.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I just assume that Alt will take Roy but you never know with them every year they draft a swing player when they really need a PG and Center. I would love to add TT or LA and Roy in the same draft but we would need to trade our 16th and something to move up and i dont think Minny will trade away the 6th pick. But then Pax got the 7th pick for nothing to draft Deng so maybe he has something up to get a second high pick.

david


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

giusd said:


> I just assume that Alt will take Roy but you never know with them every year they draft a swing player when they really need a PG and Center. I would love to add TT or LA and Roy in the same draft but we would need to trade our 16th and something to move up and i dont think Minny will trade away the 6th pick. But then Pax got the 7th pick for nothing to draft Deng so maybe he has something up to get a second high pick.
> 
> david


#16 and our #1 in 2008?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

"Morrison to the Bulls, that's a ****in fact" -- Fin Diesel


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1316
> 
> He worked out for the Lakers? Hmm, I wonder how they pulled that off.


There are rumors that they're going to be willing to part with pieces: Bynum, Odom to get into the top half of the lottery.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

GB said:


> There are rumors that they're going to be willing to part with pieces: Bynum, Odom to get into the top half of the lottery.


We know Phil Jackson used small point guards only as role players with the Bulls. Brandon Roy has definitely got some Ron Harper in him.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Brandon Roy has definitely got some Ron Harper in him.


I hope Ron bought him dinner first.


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I hope Ron bought him dinner first.


Brilliant.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

GB said:


> There are rumors that they're going to be willing to part with pieces: Bynum, Odom to get into the top half of the lottery.


 It would take more than that right? Lakers moving Kobe???


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> It would take more than that right? Lakers moving Kobe???


I would only trade Bynum for a top 3 pick. He's plenty enough to get into the lottery.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Like A Breath said:


> I would only trade Bynum for a top 3 pick. He's plenty enough to get into the lottery.


You think one year riding the pines on a dysfunctional Lakers team propels Bynum from #10 value to top 3?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Even if you threw in the Lakes pick (26) I find it hard to believe that is enough value to move into Roy territory. Perhaps Odom and 26 is enough? That's at least closer.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I think Harper is a very good comparision, before losing his knees.


----------



## greekbullsfan (Oct 26, 2003)

wow!!!!!!!!!!!!i just saw roy's clip from youtube,oh i tell u guys this kid is a monster a freak,we can't pass him,draft him Pax and trade the 16th pick plus a player to get aldgrige or Tomas


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You think one year riding the pines on a dysfunctional Lakers team propels Bynum from #10 value to top 3?


With a weaker draft and a year of experience, I would say "yes". I hear raves around here about how he's progressing under the tutelage of KAJ.

Patrick O'Bryant could be a top 5 pick averaging 13 and 8 in the MVC. I think Bynum would be seen in a similar light if he went to college.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> With a weaker draft and a year of experience, I would say "yes". I hear raves around here about how he's progressing under the tutelage of KAJ.


He also is reason why they're interested in moving Mihm, so he mustn't be too bad if Phil and Cupcake are considering it.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

step said:


> He also is reason why they're interested in moving Mihm, so he mustn't be too bad if Phil and Cupcake are considering it.


If they are looking to Move Mihm, supposing we draft Brandon Roy with the Knicks pick, a Sweets + Duhon for Mihm deal is something I'd look at, if we didn't have those two guys lined up for anything else.

Mihm is nothing special, but he's a competent, 7-foot big man, and probably just as good or better than anyone we could get in FA sans Ben Wallace.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We may draft Roy. Even though we have more immediate needs at Center or PF they can be addressed at #16 and through FA or trades or both. Drafting Roy to take the place of Basden would be a good thing! 

I still want the Italian Stallion with #2 but I would not be upset if we drafted Roy.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We may draft Roy. Even though we have more immediate needs at Center or PF they can be addressed at #16 and through FA or trades or both. Drafting Roy to take the place of Basden would be a good thing!
> 
> I still want the Italian Stallion with #2 but I would not be upset if we drafted Roy.


 I've come around on drafting Roy, as well. I've been watching his game verses Uconn over-and-over again. Screw NBA ready. . . he's siimply the best player in the draft. 

I tried to rank him in my mind as a prospect against past draft classes. Every part of his skill set is better than Deron Williams. Likewise with Iguodala (sans the blistering athleticism). He's got pro size, pro skills, and a pro demeanor. Hes one of the more complete prospects I can remember.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

One more point about Roy and the Bulls:

Roy is the perfect complement for Gordon and Hinrich. In fact, I think that drafting him would actually be a committment to making the Gordon-Hinrich back court work. Find another guard who matches up with the bigger nba athletes and has considerable experience playing both point and shooting guard?

He completes us . 

Drafting a young big can be such a crap shoot. Unless you have a truly transcendent prospect, it might just be better to fill up your front court through free agency. What up-and-coming big wouldn't want to play with a backcourt of Roy, Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni. That has to be one of the best in the league. 

Draft Roy. Grab Ben Wallace, Drew Gooden, Pryz, or Nene through free-agency. Maybe a trade. . . and this team is ready to legtimately compete.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I agree SST. Roy is the pick at #2. I believe that completely. Then bigs in FA. Maybe Pryzbilla and one of either Gooden or Harrington. These 8 as a set rotation can match up with about anybody right away I think. 

Hinrich,Gordon,Roy

Deng,Nocioni

Gooden,Pryzbilla,Chandler

Plus:

Duhon
#16 pick(Simmons,Johnson,Williams,whomever)
Pargo
Schenscher
Allen


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> One more point about Roy and the Bulls:
> 
> Roy is the perfect complement for Gordon and Hinrich. In fact, I think that drafting him would actually be a committment to making the Gordon-Hinrich back court work. Find another guard who matches up with the bigger nba athletes and has considerable experience playing both point and shooting guard?
> 
> He completes us .


I agree with this. If Roy gets the lionshare of the Duhon minutes, it strengthens our backcourt even more. I think the three-guard rotation of Hinrich-Gordon-Roy is very appealing, especially if Roy can consistently create his own shot in the pros.

Roy could very well be the pick for the Bulls. I just don't think we'll hear much about it until the draft. I don't think Pax wants to replay the DWade draft scenario again.


----------

