Wise1 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
1. The comparison to Odom was only to show that 6-10 guys with handle and athleticism CAN play the 3. The playmaking ability was not the point of emphasis, it was the ability to handle the ball. With that being said, Randolph did average less turnovers a game than Odom as a freshman. No one claims that he'll be a better playmaker. I suspect he'll be a better defender...just what we need. Again, I liken him more to Tayshaun Prince.
2. To your point about Randolph's ball handling compared to Wright and Yi's, I think you did a fine job making the distinction yourself. The separation is what makes executives think that Randolph can play the 3 in the NBA. Wright and Yi, not a chance. The Bucks can potentially go 6-11/7-1/7-0 defensively up front. That's exciting and something that Hammond and Skiles are wisely pursuing.
3. Leverage and determination are indeed more important than lifting a bar off of your chest. But Bern, how much leverage and determination would it take for a 197lb 6-11 freshman to average 8.5 rebounds per game in the SEC? The proof is in the pudding. On top of that, Randolph STILL bench pressed more than Wright and some of the other similarly built players he's been compared to here. Leverage....check. Determination....check. Wiry strength and agility....check.
4. If execs believe that Randolph will be a man without a position, then we certainly have nothing to worry about as Hammond would certainly pass on him. I happen to think that the kid can play a defensive small forward for us. I hope Hammond and Skiles came away impressed.
They can play the 3, in part, because they have some semblance of range. Handle and athleticism can't be utilized unless you're keeping the defense honest. Otherwise they don't have to pick you up until 10-15 feet. Then good luck penetrating around your defender in compressed space and immediately have to deal with shot blockers. Not having respectable range on his jumper makes Prince another fallacious comparison.
You suspect he'll be better than Odom on defense, but DX lists all around defense as a negative. Only says he has the potential to play defense, probably because of length and quickness. But they're ultimately saying quickness is an asset as a power forward, does it become a liability as a small forward? And then how do the lack of awareness, motor, as DX notes, project for him to realize his potential?
The proof is not in the 8.5 rebound per game pudding. As I've noted, LSU had a horrible rebounding margin. Randolph didn't have to fight teammates for rebounds. And LSU missed a lot of shots. If he was such a force on the boards, why was his team getting dominated in that area, with him in the frontcourt? And DX listed all these as negatives: strength, cannot hold spot on the block, pushed around in the post, can he guard NBA PF's, and once again the motor issue.
