Comedy Gold -WaylonSmither (nelsonmuntz)

[Deadrody]

Twelve likes and counting for the OP says it was kinda funny...

Make it 13

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The funny thing about a lot of you is you really believe Robinson was a supreme athlete. He was just a good dunker. Boatright is a supreme athlete. Tony Robertson is one of the 3-4 best athletes to ever wear a UConn uniform. Burrell didn't have the ups that some of the other guys had, but he had amazing body control. Rudy Gay is probably the best athlete to ever play at UConn.

Robinson is not in that class. If he was a supreme athlete, at 6'9" and probably a 7'2 wingspan, he would have made the NBA. This is a supreme athlete, according to you, who averaged 14.5 ppg and shot over 50% from the field his last year, including 34% from 3. Those kind of numbers from any 6'9 player with his wingspan should earn at least a look even if he wasn't a great athlete. He didn't even get a sniff. He got drafted at the end of the second round and has never played a minute of basketball in the league. No one whose job depended on getting these things right ever decided to bet on Robinson's athleticism. Strange, isn't it?

As I said at the time, Robinson is a good dunker that worked a lot harder than anyone gave him credit for to develop a back to the basket game (not the signature of a great 6'9 athlete btw) who was a good, not great, athlete by Big East standards. For someone to be a great athlete at 6'9, in the best conference in the country, they have to be close to a lock to go pro.

By bringing up Stanley Robinson, all you are doing is pointing out yet another unpopular position I took that turned out to be right.

 

[dogfan96]

The funny thing about a lot of you is you really believe Robinson was a supreme athlete. He was just a good dunker. Boatright is a supreme athlete. Tony Robertson is one of the 3-4 best athletes to ever wear a UConn uniform. Burrell didn't have the ups that some of the other guys had, but he had amazing body control. Rudy Gay is probably the best athlete to ever play at UConn.

Robinson is not in that class. If he was a supreme athlete, at 6'9" and probably a 7'2 wingspan, he would have made the NBA. This is a supreme athlete, according to you, who averaged 14.5 ppg and shot over 50% from the field his last year, including 34% from 3. Those kind of numbers from any 6'9 player with his wingspan should earn at least a look even if he wasn't a great athlete. He didn't even get a sniff. He got drafted at the end of the second round and has never played a minute of basketball in the league. No one whose job depended on getting these things right ever decided to bet on Robinson's athleticism. Strange, isn't it?

As I said at the time, Robinson is a good dunker that worked a lot harder than anyone gave him credit for to develop a back to the basket game (not the signature of a great 6'9 athlete btw) who was a good, not great, athlete by Big East standards. For someone to be a great athlete at 6'9, in the best conference in the country, they have to be close to a lock to go pro.

By bringing up Stanley Robinson, all you are doing is pointing out yet another unpopular position I took that turned out to be right.

You have to be more than "a great athlete" to make it in the NBA. Clearly you don't watch NBA basketball.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You have to be more than "a great athlete" to make it in the NBA. Clearly you don't watch NBA basketball.

I watch a ton of basketball at all levels, from K-1 at the Y through kids rec through adult rec through high school through college (D1-III) through NBA and even watch the occasionally Euro league game on one of the cable channels.
I am right a lot more than I am wrong about this stuff.

Robinson was actually a lot more skilled than the "great athlete that can't play basketball" morons on this board give him credit for. His back to the basket game his junior and senior year was very impressive, and showed a lot of hard work on his part. The fact that he could develop that part of his game that he didn't have as a freshman was also impressive, because low post moves often take years to learn. That shows he was coachable and a hard enough worker.

The two holes in the "Robinson is the greatest athlete in history" argument, in terms of his on the court play, are the following:

1) he was slow for a 3. Of course he could abuse the second tier 3's and 4's, but he was not a rocket end to end like say Marcus Johnson was.

2) #1 also meant he wasn't a great defender. Great athletes are almost always at least great defenders if they are not scorers. Robinson was a very average defender by UConn standards, and that is being generous.

If he was this great athlete that everyone says, someone would have taken a flier on him, either domestically or one of the top Euro leagues. No one did. Robinson is a great dunker. I will not argue that. But at the level he was competing, he wasn't a great athlete. If he was, he would be in the League.

 

[Huskybass]

Make it 20. 8700 posts from this clown with very little of it containing any real insight.

 

[Walker11]

Maybe the reason Sticks isn't in the league is because he wasn't super skilled. There are tons of supreme athletes who don't have the skills to hang in the league. Maybe the reason is because he ruptured his Achilles and tore his ACL in a 3 year span. I don't know which is accurate but everyone on the board knows you're a joke.

 

[MattMang23]

Sticks isn't in the NBA because he couldn't shoot well enough. Unless he got to the dish repeatedly he wouldn't be able to cut it in the league.

 

[Danzz]

The funny thing about a lot of you is you really believe Robinson was a supreme athlete. He was just a good dunker. Boatright is a supreme athlete. Tony Robertson is one of the 3-4 best athletes to ever wear a UConn uniform. Burrell didn't have the ups that some of the other guys had, but he had amazing body control. Rudy Gay is probably the best athlete to ever play at UConn.

Robinson is not in that class. If he was a supreme athlete, at 6'9" and probably a 7'2 wingspan, he would have made the NBA. This is a supreme athlete, according to you, who averaged 14.5 ppg and shot over 50% from the field his last year, including 34% from 3. Those kind of numbers from any 6'9 player with his wingspan should earn at least a look even if he wasn't a great athlete. He didn't even get a sniff. He got drafted at the end of the second round and has never played a minute of basketball in the league. No one whose job depended on getting these things right ever decided to bet on Robinson's athleticism. Strange, isn't it?

As I said at the time, Robinson is a good dunker that worked a lot harder than anyone gave him credit for to develop a back to the basket game (not the signature of a great 6'9 athlete btw) who was a good, not great, athlete by Big East standards. For someone to be a great athlete at 6'9, in the best conference in the country, they have to be close to a lock to go pro.

By bringing up Stanley Robinson, all you are doing is pointing out yet another unpopular position I took that turned out to be right.

"Burrell didn't have the ups that some of the other guys had,"
Burrell had more "ups" than anybody who ever played at UConn including Stanley Robinson, Tony Robertson or anybody else you want to mention.

 

[businesslawyer]

"Burrell didn't have the ups that some of the other guys had,"
Burrell had more "ups" than anybody who ever played at UConn including Stanley Robinson, Tony Robertson or anybody else you want to mention.

This. And it's not even close

 

[dogfan96]

I watch a ton of basketball at all levels, from K-1 at the Y through kids rec through adult rec through high school through college (D1-III) through NBA and even watch the occasionally Euro league game on one of the cable channels.
I am right a lot more than I am wrong about this stuff.

Robinson was actually a lot more skilled than the "great athlete that can't play basketball" morons on this board give him credit for. His back to the basket game his junior and senior year was very impressive, and showed a lot of hard work on his part. The fact that he could develop that part of his game that he didn't have as a freshman was also impressive, because low post moves often take years to learn. That shows he was coachable and a hard enough worker.

The two holes in the "Robinson is the greatest athlete in history" argument, in terms of his on the court play, are the following:

1) he was slow for a 3. Of course he could abuse the second tier 3's and 4's, but he was not a rocket end to end like say Marcus Johnson was.

2) #1 also meant he wasn't a great defender. Great athletes are almost always at least great defenders if they are not scorers. Robinson was a very average defender by UConn standards, and that is being generous.

If he was this great athlete that everyone says, someone would have taken a flier on him, either domestically or one of the top Euro leagues. No one did. Robinson is a great dunker. I will not argue that. But at the level he was competing, he wasn't a great athlete. If he was, he would be in the League.

My mistake.. you watch basketball at every level but you clearly don't have a good understanding of what you're watching.

 

[PAHusky]

I watch a ton of basketball at all levels, from K-1 at the Y through kids rec through adult rec through high school through college (D1-III) through NBA and even watch the occasionally Euro league game on one of the cable channels.
I am right a lot more than I am wrong about this stuff.

Robinson was actually a lot more skilled than the "great athlete that can't play basketball" morons on this board give him credit for. His back to the basket game his junior and senior year was very impressive, and showed a lot of hard work on his part. The fact that he could develop that part of his game that he didn't have as a freshman was also impressive, because low post moves often take years to learn. That shows he was coachable and a hard enough worker.

The two holes in the "Robinson is the greatest athlete in history" argument, in terms of his on the court play, are the following:

1) he was slow for a 3. Of course he could abuse the second tier 3's and 4's, but he was not a rocket end to end like say Marcus Johnson was.

2) #1 also meant he wasn't a great defender. Great athletes are almost always at least great defenders if they are not scorers. Robinson was a very average defender by UConn standards, and that is being generous.

If he was this great athlete that everyone says, someone would have taken a flier on him, either domestically or one of the top Euro leagues. No one did. Robinson is a great dunker. I will not argue that. But at the level he was competing, he wasn't a great athlete. If he was, he would be in the League.

Your first point is irrelevant and your second is just wrong. Straight line speed is almost never a factor in trying to figure out if a bball player is a good athlete or not. Quickness (which I'd argue he had for his size), strength (yes) and hops (not debatable) are better indicators. Great defenders in college bball, outside of the 5 spot, are often more cerebral players. Though I think he's overrated, look at someone like craft, who isn't the fifth best athlete on his team, or, closer to home, Giffey. Overwhelming athleticism is a greater boon on the offensive end and manifest itself in things like massive dunks, ability to bull your way to the rim with your back to the basket, rebounding, etc. I know that you're so deep in you wrongness at this point that you can't backtrack but let's be serious, stanley was a phenomenal athlete by anyone's standards. Comparing him to Rudy (who is one of the better athletes in the nba - why do you think he gets paid so much? potential.....based on athleticism) and Boatright (one of the better athletes this year in college bball - ever wonder why he's always the smallest guard on the court?) doesn't prove anything except the idea the UConn brings in outrageous athletes regularly. Also, Stanley did get drafted - which is the definition of someone taking a flier on him, so there's that.

 

[Fang973]

Nelson, you need to lay of the fava Beans, your starting to stink up the board. Stanley Robinson is a good kid and a great athlete. Fore reasons unknown to any of us his head was just not in it. Like dogfan96 said, it takes more than being a great athlete to make it in the NBA. Have a glass of Ciatti and chill...

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

Probably the most freak athletic move I ever saw from UConn was when Burrell leaped over that Wake Forrest player (was it Rogers?). Crazy play.

But...he lacked in hops....

 

[Danzz]

Probably the most freak athletic move I ever saw from UConn was when Burrell leaped over that Wake Forrest player (was it Rogers?). Crazy play.

But...he lacked in hops....

Still have never seen anything like that play and yes it was Rogers. Burrell was even a foot higher than everybody else in warm ups.
Amazing that nelson could watch so much basketball at many levels and learn so little.

 

[BlueHen]

Make it 13

Currently at 20. I am one of them. Mikhail Tal nailed it.

 

[intlzncster]

Currently at 20. I am one of them. Mikhail Tal nailed it.

Is that who that is? I always thought it was some old horror movie.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It's annoying, but at least tolerable, when the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room actually is.

But when he's the village idiot, he just comes off as a douchey clown.

 

[David 76]

Nelson, When people step up for you and/or chide people to get off you and onto the Sweet 16, it is not the time to rekindle a 5 year old argument.

 

[Waquoit]

Make it 20. 8700 posts from this clown with very little of it containing any real insight.

That's not true. Plenty of his posts have real insight. Agree or disagree, that's fine. But I have always felt that nelson plays fair. By that I mean he posts what he believes and gives backup for his contentions. As opposed to those who just namecall and insult, adding nothing to the debate.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Your first point is irrelevant and your second is just wrong. Straight line speed is almost never a factor in trying to figure out if a bball player is a good athlete or not. Quickness (which I'd argue he had for his size), strength (yes) and hops (not debatable) are better indicators. Great defenders in college bball, outside of the 5 spot, are often more cerebral players. Though I think he's overrated, look at someone like craft, who isn't the fifth best athlete on his team, or, closer to home, Giffey. Overwhelming athleticism is a greater boon on the offensive end and manifest itself in things like massive dunks, ability to bull your way to the rim with your back to the basket, rebounding, etc. I know that you're so deep in you wrongness at this point that you can't backtrack but let's be serious, stanley was a phenomenal athlete by anyone's standards. Comparing him to Rudy (who is one of the better athletes in the nba - why do you think he gets paid so much? potential.....based on athleticism) and Boatright (one of the better athletes this year in college bball - ever wonder why he's always the smallest guard on the court?) doesn't prove anything except the idea the UConn brings in outrageous athletes regularly. Also, Stanley did get drafted - which is the definition of someone taking a flier on him, so there's that.

I am sick of people saying that Giffey is not a good athlete/slow/white/white/white/white. He's white. We get it. You lose all credibility with that statement alone, and nothing else you say in this post matters.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Probably the most freak athletic move I ever saw from UConn was when Burrell leaped over that Wake Forrest player (was it Rogers?). Crazy play.

But...he lacked in hops....

I don't know if you are stupid, or being a d-head, but that is absolutely NOT what I said.

Burrell was obviously a great athlete, but Robertson would look like he was shot out of a cannon when he dunked. It's funny, because I love arguing things like who is the best UConn dunker ever, or what the best UConn dunk ever was.

Unfortunately, any time you try to have a discussion like that on this board, a like you jumps in. Nice work.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

This. And it's not even close

It's not even close. It's not even close? IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!!!!!!

Robertson.

 

[businesslawyer]

It's annoying, but at least tolerable, when the guy who thinks he's the smartest guy in the room actually is.

.

No one tolerates me because of my good looks.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Sticks isn't in the NBA because he couldn't shoot well enough. Unless he got to the dish repeatedly he wouldn't be able to cut it in the league.

Sticks was a good player, and he improved a lot during his time at UConn, but he was too slow for the 3 and his speed was barely there for the 4. He wasn't a GREAT athlete by Big East standards, because if he was, he would have been in the League. That is all I ever said.

 

[PAHusky]

I am sick of people saying that Giffey is not a good athlete/slow/white/white/white/white. He's white. We get it. You lose all credibility with that statement alone, and nothing else you say in this post matters.

I never said Giffey wasn't a good athlete. In fact, his athleticism at this point is probably underrated a bit. I'm just pointing out that you're wrong in making a correlation between being a good defender and being a transcendent athlete. Giffey isn't the best athlete on the team, probably not close (Boatright is, as you actually pointed out, and you could argue Brimah is for his size, or Kromah, or possibly Daniels are all better athletes than Niels, and it has nothing to do with him being white, guy). Really appreciate you being unable to refute any other point myself or anyone else has made just absolutely proving everything you've said wrong and instead referencing Giffey's race while ignoring overwhelming logic. Also, Sticks was a fantastic athlete by national standards and definitely by Big East standards, and your assertion that his inability to stick in the NBA proves otherwise is wrong and completely absurd. And you wonder why you're the subject of this thread?