When you watch a kid play and you're thinking "How good can he be?," what exactly are you looking at...

athleticism (which is so much more than running and jumping, it's ridiculous...dunno how people don't get this by now)?
in-game IQ?
motor?
poise?
leadership?
durability?

obviously, bits and pieces of ALL of these things make a great prospect into a great player.

and the importance of these things vary by position. for example, i think the most important quality for a QB is leadership. believe it or not, ravens players respected the hell outta bum ass trent dilfer. they LISTENED to that guy and respected his toughess. there's also my Bamma Big Man Theory (which T-Rob has made his mission in life to disprove), which states: "If a big man tries ALL THE TIME, it is impossible for a big man to be sorry." That's MOTOR. RBs have to be DURABLE...that is the #1 thing for me when looking at a RB. good/quick feet is next. Alfred "First Round Talent" Morris is the latest example of this.

Anyway, just curious, because I'm tired of seeing certain guys being said to have a high "ceiling" based on nothing more than athleticism and they are SORRY in all other areas.

Can I get some feedback? Just curious.

only worry is that the organization will drain the bamma essence from him.

And if so is that good enough?

It shouldn't be, because I think he has way more talent than that.

But I agree, trying is the most important part. I've watched a whole half season games worth of my man Alex Poythress not show any life and not try. And hoping if he figures out if he tries and plays really hard, he can be a helluva player.

Just exert yourself, and it'll come naturally.

You can't teach motor though, just give players the alternative of not playing.

Some players out there aren't trying at all that've let me down. Beasley and Derrick Williams for two.

>
>Anyway, just curious, because I'm tired of seeing certain guys
>being said to have a high "ceiling" based on nothing more than
>athleticism and they are SORRY in all other areas.
>
>Can I get some feedback? Just curious.

dudes are gonna cyse and just come in here and say he sucks.

But I think he has some pretty good upside. Ive never seen someone get capped on upside more than him. Even people who like him, "yea hes good, but can only be B level good at his best..."

Even though he's young he has a limited ceiling because he lacks traditional athleticism. But yea in reality athleticism isnt just jumping high.

>poise?
>in-game IQ?

whatever it is, its between the ears. there is no visible athletic or physiological difference between Michael Jordan and every other lottery 2 guard of the last 15 years. neuroscience has begun to get into the fray of what turns athletes into elite performers as well, and its the brain.

>athleticism (which is so much more than running and jumping,
>it's ridiculous...dunno how people don't get this by now)?

2nd biggest component imo because its the one thing you cant coach up. you can coach around it with a guy who might limited, but you cant give him more.

>motor?

3rd biggest component. some kids just need some structure and direction a la andre drummond. but its tough to fix lazy.

>leadership?

i think leaders are leaders, no matter how "good" they are. obviously its better when your best players are your leaders, but it doesnt have to be that way

>durability?

doesnt determine the height of the ceiling, does determine the surface area tho

>obviously, bits and pieces of ALL of these things make a great
>prospect into a great player.

>for
>example, i think the most important quality for a QB is
>leadership. believe it or not, ravens players respected the
>hell outta bum ass trent dilfer. they LISTENED to that guy and
>respected his toughess.

im not sure how far apart we are but its discipline to me.
~studying the film
~trusting the reads
~responsibly running the plays as called
~staying cool in the face of the rush

>there's also my Bamma Big Man Theory
>(which T-Rob has made his mission in life to disprove), which
>states: "If a big man tries all ALL THE TIME, it is impossible
>for a big man to be sorry." That's MOTOR.

lol im gonna need a working definition of sorry

>RBs have to be
>DURABLE...that is the #1 thing for me when looking at a RB.
>good/quick feet is next. Alfred "First Round Talent" Morris is
>the latest example of this.

problem is, durable only shows up in retrospect. for me its eyes. what does he do in the 0.5 sec after he gets the ball if the hole is closed. is it bouncebouncebounce or can he find some secondary space?

it's much harder for a guy to go to a team with a tradition of losing to turn it around.

For example if Tim Couch or Akili Smith had gone to different teams...different environments....their careers may have ended up differently....

losing is contageous...and it infests everyone around it.... For a young player to come into that type of environment.....but having a nice paycheck..that complacency is going to sink in, and that's it for them.

I think Sam Bradford was right at that verge of falling off but getting Jeff Fisher as a head coach put a more professional environment around him and thus he bounced back some this year....

it's all about where you go....when..and who else is there.

RBO made me think of that when referring to Poythress. Having no position or being in a poor situation which doesn't make the best use or your gifts are huge success factors.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=2121330&mesg_id=2121330&page=#2121549

is balance. Not necessarily balance like a gymnast but for anyone whos practiced martial arts, what I notie a lot in the top tier pgs is this ability to really control where their center of gravity is. Theyll be fast or quick as shit, but never out of control, feet always underneath their center. Even when they slow down, their feet are always underneath them...so they have options.


CP3 has it, Kyrie has it, Deron, Rose, nash even has it has it.


pgs that dont necessarily have it: Wessy, Wall

it's so much more than running fast and jumping high.

and what you're talking about CAN'T be learned. it is as much a gift as fast twitch muscle fibers. people just do not appreciate it, because it's such a nuanced part of athleticism.

like, people ain't understand that james harden was gonna wreck the L because no one wanna be bothered with his crazy footwork and handle. he not the fastest...he not the best leaper...but his feet are GOOD! he nimble in that traffic, dogg...it matters. i mean, and he has a good J. all of that has to be evaluated.

My dude Eric Bledsoe improved his balance quite a bit since his UK days, considering he literally used to fall down at least once a game. Just watching CP3 helped him out a ton.

>My dude Eric Bledsoe improved his balance quite a bit since
>his UK days, considering he literally used to fall down at
>least once a game. Just watching CP3 helped him out a ton.


I actually thought I mentioned him.

But yea I wonder how much of it can be learned. Bledsoe as much as he may have improved still isnt anywhere in the planet of those guys I mentioned.

I love Jeremy Lin, he has that great quickline first step burts, but his balance in this regard is pretty mediocre--and Im nt sure how much better he can get at it.

he hits the deck way too much when caught in the congestion of the lane. part of that is strength, the rest is balance. his handle and athleticism are fine.

i find in all great backs thy possess these traits.

an example of someone who was bad with patience saints era reggie bush

he just hit the hole as fast as he could every time with no concept of letting blocks develop.

he physically could do anything but he just ran like a park ball running back

It worked for him in college cause he was so much faster than everyone

cutting ability is pretty cut and dry
that vision to see the cutback and explode through it

Waiting for holes & lanes to open up in basketball instead of bogartin to the rack

Waiting for a defender to committ to a double team before passing

Waiting for a baseball to get deep in the zone before you hit it the other way

Etc...etc

We've seen countless terrific high school leaders make for okay to mediocre college players, and countless college leaders make for okay to mediocre pro players.

Things like "leadership" and "high IQ for the sport" really should only be used to differentiate those among the best of the best. And generally speaking, usually we don't get multiple best of the bests at a given position in a single draft class of prospects.

Sure, there will be the occasional token white or largely unimpressive athletic specimen who sneaks onto the end of the bench or the back part of a roster due to "IQ." But those are the exceptions for "leadership" and "high IQ" making a real difference.

And really, so many outside factors affect "leadership" that it's completely unquantifiable. A brilliant leader on one team may want nothing to do with leading another. A non-leader in college may find himself inspired to lead at the next level. It's so up in the air.

And athleticism is without question important... but basic fundamentals must go hand in hand. Especially for non-centers... big men can get away with a lack of fundamentals if they're athletic enough. Swings and guards really can't. Not forever, anyway. You can't be "just athletic" and have a high ceiling.

as an outsider, most of it revolves around facial expressions on the field, fluff second-hand anecdotes and game results

Think of all of the QBs who have led their team to winning seasons in college, sometimes BCS bowl victories or even titles, who can't stick in the pros despite their "leadership" and "high IQ."

Unless there's a certain ground level of elite pure size, strength, and athleticism, they simply won't stick. Scores of Heisman Trophy winning QBs who were unquestionably strong leaders on wildly successful offenses in college never amounted to shit in the pros, because in the pros, having been a leader and *wanting* to lead simply isn't enough.

Likewise, there are super-athletes with cannons who just can't figure it out because they DON'T have the necessary leadership or high football IQ. But these guys just tend to bust bigger as they tend to get drafted higher.

It's just so unquantifiable as evidence. It's not that tales of a player's leadership should be ignored, and there are obvious exceptions where leadership carried a player past their potential physical or athletic drawbacks, but it shouldn't be the ground floor for determining their ceiling.

that encompasses a lot of things.

They either can't create but are good at scoring, or they can create but aren't good at efficiently scoring.