Isn't Anyone Excited About Ryan Anderson?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
535964685_a69431c74f.jpg
 
I don't understand how a guy that led the Pac-10 in scoring could be so underrated.

When he was picked, everyone loved CDR, they liked Lopez for the most part, but this guy was viewed as OK to irrelevant.
 
Real said:
I don't understand how a guy that led the Pac-10 in scoring could be so underrated.
Click to expand...
Let alone a guy that is a 6'10" 240lb PF that also averaged 9.9 rebounds per game... all as a sophmore.
 
MisterMontross said:
College stats mean nothing. This is the NBA.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but the comment wasn't about what he can accomplish. Was a reference to being underrated coming into the league. Anyone that can lead a major conference like that and has those physical tools shouldn't be too underrated.
 
Netted said:
Agreed, but the comment wasn't about what he can accomplish. Was a reference to being underrated coming into the league. Anyone that can lead a major conference like that and has those physical tools shouldn't be too underrated.
Click to expand...

He was picked at #21, and no one expected him to be picked that high.

His college numbers mean nothing.
 
I honestly don't understand the hype about Anderson.

1. Laughable on ball defense. People saying his team defense is good doesn't matter when teams will just ISO against him. Jamison, Harrington and Amare all blew right by him for layups or fouls on the help defender.

2. He has no standing still vertical leap.
The result? He can't finish inside AT ALL.
He either gets stuffed (5 times already in 3 games by my count) or he leans/contorts to create space, resulting in an awkward shot.

3. Slow straight line AND lateral speed. Even for a 4.

Strengths:
1) He can shoot from outside.
2) He can dribble (but doesn't drive)
3) He has a good BB IQ.

Sure it's only his first 3 NBA games, but I just don't see him as ever being more than a spread the floor PF off the bench.
 
MisterMontross said:
His college numbers mean nothing.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. They may not translate exactly, but a guy that does nothing in college is less likely to do anything in the NBA. He had some college success, which bodes well for potential NBA success.

He had some success playing competitive basketball, you can't say it means nothing. Of course it doesn't guarantee anything.
 
Last edited:
Netted said:
Bullshit. They may not translate exactly, but a guy that does nothing in college is less likely to do anything in the NBA. He had some college success, which bodes well for potential NBA success.

He had some success playing competitive basketball, you can't say it means nothing. Of course it doesn't guarantee anything.
Click to expand...

Just college numbers. What do they mean right now?
 
MFNetsFan said:
I honestly don't understand the hype about Anderson.

1. Laughable on ball defense. People saying his team defense is good doesn't matter when teams will just ISO against him. Jamison, Harrington and Amare all blew right by him for layups or fouls on the help defender.

2. He has no standing still vertical leap.
The result? He can't finish inside AT ALL.
He either gets stuffed (5 times already in 3 games by my count) or he leans/contorts to create space, resulting in an awkward shot.

3. Slow straight line AND lateral speed. Even for a 4.

Strengths:
1) He can shoot from outside.
2) He can dribble (but doesn't drive)
3) He has a good BB IQ.
Click to expand...

Seems a little early to be this critical, but this same scouting report could easily have applied to Carlos Boozer - save the outside shooting of course.
 
MisterMontross said:
Just college numbers. What do they mean right now?
Click to expand...

It means the odds are better that he can achieve some success on the NBA level. That is all.

Someone that has had some success at competitive basketball has a better chance of success on the NBA level and the PAC 10 is highly competitive. But again, no guarantees... it's about odds.
 
Netted said:
It means the odds are better that he can achieve some success on the NBA level. That is all.

Someone that has had some success at competitive basketball has a better chance of success on the NBA level and the PAC 10 is highly competitive. But again, no guarantees... it's about odds.
Click to expand...

Well, you are free to see them that way. However, as most of the people whose opinions are respected in these matters feel that he was drafted at a higher slot than he deserved, I would have to say that he was overrated by the Nets organization.
 
MisterMontross said:
Well, you are free to see them that way. However, as most of the people whose opinions are respected in these matters feel that he was drafted at a higher slot than he deserved, I would have to say that he was overrated by the Nets organization.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it just as possible that he was undervalued by those others? In three games, he is playing about as well as you'd expect from any 20 year-old rookie seeing light minutes off the bench that was drafted late lottery or lower. I dare say he's outperforming some drafted much higher, especially if you look at productivity per minute. Obviously the sample size is way too small to draw conclusions either way, but if you're going to do it anyway, the Nets got it right and some other teams got it wrong.
 
FOMW said:
Why isn't it just as possible that he was undervalued by those others? In three games, he is playing about as well as you'd expect from any 20 year-old rookie seeing light minutes off the bench that was drafted late lottery or lower. I dare say he's outperforming some drafted much higher, especially if you look at productivity per minute. Obviously the sample size is way too small to draw conclusions either way, but if you're going to do it anyway, the Nets got it right and some other teams got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

As FOMW said, the sample size is small, but can you argue with averages of 8.3 PPG, 4.7 RPG, and only 1.3 TPG, while shooting 43% from 3, and 100% from FT? He's only 20 years old, and when you take into account that most players drafted 15 and higher do not amount to much, I think it's great!
 
MisterMontross said:
Well, you are free to see them that way. However, as most of the people whose opinions are respected in these matters feel that he was drafted at a higher slot than he deserved, I would have to say that he was overrated by the Nets organization.
Click to expand...

The very definition of underrated.

Of course the Nets believed in him, but if everyone else thought he was selected where he deserved to be picked we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
FOMW said:
Why isn't it just as possible that he was undervalued by those others? In three games, he is playing about as well as you'd expect from any 20 year-old rookie seeing light minutes off the bench that was drafted late lottery or lower. I dare say he's outperforming some drafted much higher, especially if you look at productivity per minute. Obviously the sample size is way too small to draw conclusions either way, but if you're going to do it anyway, the Nets got it right and some other teams got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Hell, anythings possible. Is it possible he was overvalued by the Nets?

And whether he was under or over valued will be determined by his NBA play, not his college stats.
 
MisterMontross said:
Hell, anythings possible. Is it possible he was overvalued by the Nets?

And whether he was under or over valued will be determined by his NBA play, not his college stats.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you are stating that now (and I agree), though that was not what you stated a few posts back. I was responding to your (invalid) assertion that because a majority of those whose opinions were respected had him ranked lower than where he was drafted, he was necessarily overvalued by the Nets.
 
Let's stop talking about basketball and talk about semantics instead! Fun!

I've seen this guy play three games. I like him so far. That's it.
 
ghoti said:
Let's stop talking about basketball and talk about semantics instead! Fun!

I've seen this guy play three games. I like him so far. That's it.
Click to expand...

What the hell else are you supposed to do with two hours to kill before a game and a noted Vince-hater contradicting himself?
 
FOMW said:
I'm glad you are stating that now (and I agree), though that was not what you stated a few posts back. I was responding to your (invalid) assertion that because a majority of those whose opinions were respected had him ranked lower than where he was drafted, he was necessarily overvalued by the Nets.
Click to expand...

I used the word 'necessarily'?
 
FOMW said:
What the hell else are you supposed to do with two hours to kill before a game and a noted Vince-hater contradicting himself?
Click to expand...

Jason Kidd gave us a lot of excitement and I loved those years, but the last five years have been so frustrating and the last two have been miserable.

It's so great to feel the Nets are getting better instead of worse. I'm really enjoying the possibilities for what the team will become.

And these are all good guys, too. The coach is a class act and the players are easy to root for. Even the two guys people complain about are not really bad guys. Swift is just quiet and easily frustrated and Sean is a goofball who isn't competitive enough. Big whoop! They don't even play!

So I like that Ryan Anderson looks like a real basketball player and won't be another Wright or Marcus Williams. It's exciting to me that a lot of good things are starting to happen again.
 
I like the fact the he played in just 3 games and shows alot. I don't see his progress stopping at any point. He will be a major contributor to this team by years end, and will be viewed as one of the biggest steals in the draft. Anybody seen CDR lately?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top