Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
We all know players under 6 foot will have a much harder time making it in the NBA. Steve Logan, 5'10", a point guard who was on the NCAA first team last year. Picked in the second round, and will probably be third on his depth chart.

He has everything any other top point guard prospect has, speed, strength, defense, shooting skills, passing skills, fundamentals, but he's a few inches shorter than your average NBA PG. I don't get it. Allen Iverson and Jason Terry are both far below the average height of a shooting guard. 6 inches and 5 inches below, yet they are (or at least one is) stars in the NBA.

So why can't point guards have the opportunity to make up for their size with other skills???? I remember when i was 13 i gave up my dream of playing in the NBA because the doctor told me I was likely to only reach 5'9" or 5'10"

If anything, you would think size would be less important at the PG position than at SG. It just baffles me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
I think it is very hard to defend when you have to guard somebody several inches taller than you. And if there is any change in the assignaments due to screens it becomes harder and harder.

It also hurts you in the offensive end. You need more space to shoot and to find the passing lines.

About Terry, the word is that he is going to play as a PG next season, and Iverson is an ultraquick player.

I think this is the worst part of this wonderful sport: you need to be tall to be able to play it at high level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Genjuro, I know it affects how well you can play, I just want to know why point guards never get a chance to make up for their size, while players like Allen Iverson can. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Jason Kidd - 6'4" 212
Gary Payton - 6'4" 180
Baron Davis - 6'3" 223
Mike Bibby - 6'1" 190
Steve Francis - 6'3" 191
Andre Miller - 6'2" 200
Stephon Marbury - 6'2" 180
Steve Nash 6'3" 195
John Stockton 6'1" 175
Sam Cassell 6'3" 185

I consider those ten guys the top points in the NBA (no order). Obvouisly the tenth spot is up for serious debate but just looking at the heights you I think you can understand how important size is at the point position. Kidd, Payton, Baron Davis, Francis, Nash and Cassell all have very good size at point. Bibby and Stockton are really the only players who you could consider undersized and neither is undersized very much. Both of those players also make up for their lack of size with great on the court savvy and playmaking skills. You can point out how Damon Stoudemire(5'10" 171) and Travis Best (5'11" 181) but neither are sure starters next year. Size matters at the point position which is a big reason why I believe Troy Bell, Raymond Felton, Chis Thomas, Jason Gardner, Anthony Robertson and Jonathan Hargett will have difficulty making it as big stars in the NBA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
That just proves how size matters in the NBA, but I'm saying it matters for the wrong reasons. Maybe if they gave players like Steve Logan the opportunity to show they can make up for lack of size, we'd have more Allen Iverson's in the league. I have never seen a Point guard under 6 foot get a decent chance at being a starter. It just doesn't seem right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I'm not saying it isn't important. If Steve Logan had been 6'3" he almost would have definitly been picked in the first round. I just believe that in a league where 6'2" shooting guards are becoming more and more commen, it seems unfair that the undersized point guards aren't the same opportunity as the undersized shooting guards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Originally posted by <b>STING</b>!
That just proves how size matters in the NBA, but I'm saying it matters for the wrong reasons. Maybe if they gave players like Steve Logan the opportunity to show they can make up for lack of size, we'd have more Allen Iverson's in the league. I have never seen a Point guard under 6 foot get a decent chance at being a starter. It just doesn't seem right.
Sorry, I do not buy that.

These players do get their chances. They may fall in the draft, but that is irrelevant. Once you get on the court and play, draft standing goes out the window. They get their chance to show themselves in practice, pre-season, etc. The teams and coaches do get to see what the players have.

If the guys showed the ability to be Iverson, or anyone near that, they would play. As simple as that. You make it sound like it's a conspiracy that the league has towards short people, and that even if they are good, they wont play, and that's just wrong. The shorter players may fall in the draft, whether you agree or disagree with it, but, they still get the chance to show what they can do on the court. And obviously, not too many of them have made the best of it.

If you're good, you'll play, no matter what you're size is(obviously if you're 4'2, you're not, but you get the point).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Just think about it, when players are picked higher in the draft, they generally are picked onto teams that have less talent, thus giving the drafted player a higher chance of playing, right?

Where-as if the Nets down the board drafted a point guard (not saying they would), chances are they would NOT get a chance to play. I'm not making it sound like a conspiracy, but it seems so unfair that some players aren't even drafted sometimes, just becuase of their size. Doesn't it seem weird that there isn't an AI of point guards? Don't you think by now there should be a 5'10" stud point guard in the NBA? What about Jason Gardner? One of the best athletes in the NCAA, he is projected as a late 2nd round pick in most mock drafts. It just doesn't seem fair to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Again, I don't buy it.

If a guy can play, a guy can play. A team is going to realize a guys ability. And if he has the ability to be an excellent player, he's going to play, no matter where he is at. If he's in NJ, they'll devise a way to play both Kidd and whoever this player is, along with him backing up Kidd to get him minutes.

All I am saying if a player is good, he's going to play. Whether he's 5'9 or 6'2, if the dude has game, he's going to play.

I agree that size hurts people in the draft and such, but that all becomes irrelevant once you step on the floor and action begins. You don't think Lamar Odom thinks about Rashard Lewis being a 2nd round pick when he plays head to head against him do you? He sees a tough matchup and great player and he's got to go against that. I know that isn't a size issue, but it's the same point. Draft position is irrelevant, and thats the biggest area I think smaller players are 'discriminated' against. They'll fall in the draft, but if they got game, they'll play, even if they were undrafted.

This is all based on your comment about there being more Iversons if they'd let the smaller guys play - And thats what I do not buy. These guys do get the chance to show their stuff, and if they had even half the talent that Iverson has, they'd be playing in the league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
I buy it. I completely understand what Sting is saying, and totally agree. The league does has a history of shunning small point guards just because their little. I think alot of times skill has little to do with making the league for alot of guys when you're under 6'0". And if you don't believe me, go ask Scoonie Penn, Shaheen Halloway, and Rashad Phillips. And Tyus Edney won a freakin NCAA championship for Christ's sakes, and where is he at? Clawing to stay in the league. Nowadays, for a little man, it seems like you have to be extremely lucky to make it (Dana Barros, Travis Best, Earl Boykins), or breathtakingly athletic, (Spud Webb, Muggsy Bogues, Speedy Claxton, Allen Iverson). It's just the plain hard truth that tiny guys don't get as fair a shake as big, stiff, 7-footers drafted to take up space, or ultra-athletic tweeners drafted only on sheer potential. Charles Barkley said it best, "When a little guy makes it to the league, you know he can play."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,756 Posts
With size it is like insurence for the team, it is safer to get a 6-6 PG that can dribble, pass, shoot, and defend, than get a 5-10 PG that has the exact same skills. Teams need to find ways to get miss-matches on the court in the game any way they can. And getting a 6-6 PG with all the skills of a 5-10 PG in a big advantage on defense and offense. And why are you using Logan as a example, he got to the NBA, yeah he was not a lottery pick and should not of been one. But he is in, it is in his hands to show what he can do, if a small PG can play he will get in, but the main thing is on defense, teams don't want tinny PG's because they get killed on defense. Just look Shawnte Rodgers, he was a 5-7 PG that scored 20-25 points a game on George Washington, but he was not picked because he would get killed by the bigger PG's in the NBA. It is just a safer bet to take a big PG compared to a small one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
I really don't see it being unfair either. I mean if an undersized point can score in the NBA he will find his way on a team. Logan wasn't a first round pick for more reasons that just his height. I'm a huge Logan fan but he isn't very quick and he can't jump. His playmaking skills and passing skills from the point are questionalbe. He only played on year at the point (Satterfield handled it when he was a junior and sophomore) and he didn't exactly do a lot of setting his teammates up. He proved to be a very good shooter with an excellent understanding of how to use the glass and pull up for the mid-range jumper. I think even if he was 6'1" or 6'2" he wouldn't have went top 20. Just look at Frank Williams.

Logan and every other point also has every chance to make it big in the NBA. If a kid dominates in camps and practice then he is going to get playing time. Coaches want to win in the NBA and they are generally going to put their best team on the court. I highly doubt all of the coaces organize every year and decide to dsicrimate against undersized points and power forwards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,420 Posts
The matter of fact is, NBA is a very physical league. Teams concern about players' defensive ability over anything. A smaller guy will get abuse by a bigger guy defensively. So why AI is playing at this level? The answer is he is guarding opponents' PG, who are about his size. Eric Snow, at 6-3, is the one to guard opponents' SG. There were example of little guys making it to the league, the best one was Mussy Bogues, or even Spud Webb. These two guys were very small but extremely athletic so they could make up their size. The problem is today's NBA players are getting bigger and stronger so it's hard to find a player under 6 feet who could start regular now unless he's an extremely gifted passer like JKidd. I don't see any so far...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I really think Steve Logan could be, and still will be a hit in the NBA. The only things he lacks on (besides a few inches) is major physical ability, which is something that can be easily changed in the NBA workout programs. Contrary to what most people believe, I always thought he DID have athletisism. He was great at creating his own shot, was all over his man defensively, and seemed to have games where he just didn't miss.

Remember that game where Childs exploded? Toronto vs. Detroit in the first round? That is exactly what he reminded me of.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
something to think about

The guys who run NBA teams get paid to do their job. They've done it for basically their whole life. If a guy can play, he'll play. If a guy's not getting minutes, he most likely doesn't have what it takes. And don't try to give me examples of a few guys who sat on the bench and then became good players when they got time, because I can always come back with 10 for every 1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Tharevolution, you may have it right.

But when you look at the situation from a wider view, size can totally ruin a players career, and it may be for the wrong reasons.

You all probably know the rookie sallary system, 1st pick is guarentied so much, then it slightly decreases as the picks go down. By the time you've reached the late second round, these 5'10" college studs I.E. Jason Gardner, Steve Logan, have no idea what will become of them. It makes a serious impact on the player's entire career. No matter what people say, It is totally untrue that players who are good in practice will get to play. Practicing helps, no doubt, but is a 5'10" point guard going to get much playing time reguardless if he is drafted to a team such as the Hornets or Nets? And if he doesn't play, how is he going to get exposure? How will he ever GET the chance to play on an NBA floor and prove he can, if he never PLAYS in the first place?
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top