STOMP

Looking over as many guys as you did to compile that short list should lead you to an educated guess. For guys standing 6'7.5 or so barefoot, having a 7' wingspan is pretty solid length... same height having a 9'1 standing reach is almost unheard of.

James Jones measured 1/4 inch shorter then MB and had a Condor like wingspan of 7'2.5 yet only a 8'11.5 standing... he also clocked in at the same weight (220lbs) that these sites have Beasley pegged. Can you see him trading inside with the starting 4s of the league or is he better suited for the perimeter? Thats my main point here...

STOMP

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A&NR=1

GOD

Somewhere along the way I think you got the idea I was arguing with you about Beasley. I wasn't. I was simply trying to find players who matched the statistical parameters you mentioned earlier.

But, if you want my opinion on Beasley, here it is. I think he will end up a very good player who will more than likely play both PF and SF with SF eventually being his primary role. I think there are a lot of teams in the modern NBA, like GS, that could use a player like Beasley as a PF. However, the vast majority of teams, that don't run a wide open style, will want a PF that is more capable of defending other bigs. I think Beasley has the offensive skills to play both positions very well, but on the defensive end, he will be better suited to SF.

I hear people talk about "tweener" with some players and "versatile" with others. I think you want a versatile player that can effectively play 2+ positions. So when I hear the word tweener, I think of it as more negative, where they are too slow to effectively play the SF position and too weak to play the PF spot. Beasley I do not see as too slow, so I can't call him a tweener. I think he may be too weak to battle with bigs, but in truth, he sure seems to hold his own in the NCAA. So, perhaps he is just versatile and can play both positions very well. I think the jury will be out for some time. SOme players put on a lot of bulk in the NBA while others have a hard time adding an ounce.

So, if I think he will be able to play both positions in the NBA eventually, why do I say he will end up a SF? Because he holds a greater advantage from the SF spot. As a PF, he would hold his own, but as a SF I feel he could really dominate.

__________________

STOMP

mostly I wanted to argue with GOD.

Sounds like were in near full agreement on how Beasley projects...great versatile scorer from all over but probably not suited to be a 4 on D especially because PFs often get switched on to the other team's center where he'd be even more over matched physically.

STOMP

__________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaQprMCe20A&NR=1

BBert

That's correct. It's because the team with the most lotto balls still only has a 25% chance of getting the no. 1 pick; which means they have a 75% chance of NOT getting the first pick. They actually have a better chance (36%) at the no. 4 pick. (Or something like that.)

__________________
In KP I trust.

MrJayremmie

IDK what position Beasly will end up playing, that is a good conversation.

I'm worried that he might end up like a Jeff Green in seattle. He has much mroe talent, but i'm thinkin' about playing position situation.

__________________

Jerryd Bayless