What's up with Stanley Robinson??? | The Boneyard

What's up with Stanley Robinson???

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
909
Reaction Score
329
Stan got the gift from God of a beautiful body with which to play basketball.
On that body he got the brain of a man fit for something requiring less aggression and determination. In my day dreams I picture Stan with a gorgeous woman on a tropical beach in a far away tourist area making beautiful pottery with his enormous hands.

Watching Stan play is like watching a guy in a Porsche 911 race a bunch of guys in Volvos around a big oval. The 911 runs around in the pack for most of the race, and finishes somewhere around the middle of the pack. Several times a race, however, the 911 blows past the other cars, easily, takes the lead, and handles corners at speeds the other cars can't match. You're not sure what's going on. Is the driver confused about the shift pattern? Is there something wrong with the steering? Are the tires cold? Is the fuel pump hincky? Why doesn't he just take control of the race and start lapping the field? It's clear he's got the best car.

Loved watching Stan.
Felt bad when Stan took the metal works hiatus.
Felt great when he came back.
Had positive fan emotions among the most intense I've ever had as a Husky watching Stan go off in the FF run and against Texas and other choice games.
Will always - always - have a bit of a sad spot in my brain where I keep the memory of Stan and I think of how good he was, and how much more he had the physical potential to produce, but, for whatever reason, kept to himself. I always speculated that Stan fights demons, like many do. I always imagined him as a thinker, who happend to ball, rather than a baller who didn't do much thinking.
I remember the story about JC screaming at him one practice and he simply gave JC a big hug, which really surprised JC, as no kid before had ever responded to the vituperations that way. That about sums it up - all of it.

Stan - where ever you're at, and whatever you're doing - you're one of my favorite few Huskies of all time. I hope you find happiness and peace, where ever it is you choose to go and what ever it is you choose to do.

RobinsonStanley_headshotlg.jpg
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
801
Reaction Score
498
Welp, nothing more really needs to be said on this topic.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
278
Reaction Score
22
Note that the article was dated almost 1 month ago. Stanley left Iowa weeks ago.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,552
Reaction Score
19,987
I have fond memories of Stan in the 2009 tournament. He was a beast that tourney. Even in the F4, he was the major factor in UConn coming all the way back from down 20+. He actually had the ball with the chance to bring UConn to within one shot. Michigan State couldn't contain him.
 
C

Chief00

During his metal works hiatus I had the happenstance to chat with him at a game. Very nice and respectable kid and very sweet. Quite frankly, how another player in his class treated him for 4 years, hurt his development. The other posters are correct Stanley couldn't create his own shot , other than just jumping above someone close to the basket. However, the only time he did not have someone effectively attempt to freeze him out of the offense was when Jerome was injured during the 2009 F4 run. By no coincidence that was Stanley's best basketball by far.

Kemba and AJ both playing together with the team shared the ball with Stanley at the right time/spots - which he needed since he did not create his own shot. That feeling of being accepted and not punked down also got Stanley's rebound numbers up. I always said with Stanley it's all about the guards getting him the ball in the right spots at the right time and being accepted by teammates. Playing with Bigs and guards who like to run (who did not turn over the ball) helped as well.

I think Stanley could still make the NBA if he played with the right point guard and dedicated himself more to learning the plays, etc.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
23,909
Reaction Score
25,965
Has he spent anytime in Europe, he could certainly play at that level.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,709
Reaction Score
38,326
Stanley Robinson was a good player and a great dunker, nothing more. 80% of the board ascribed superhuman athletic ability to him, and then implied he was stupid and/or lazy when he didn't dominate. He was just a good athlete by Big East standards, and just a good player. He wasn't a great athlete compared the guys he was competing against, and he isn't stupid and/or lazy because he is not in the NBA.

I was right when I said this 4 years ago, and I am still right today.
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Messages
147
Reaction Score
91
During his metal works hiatus I had the happenstance to chat with him at a game. Very nice and respectable kid and very sweet. Quite frankly, how another player in his class treated him for 4 years, hurt his development. The other posters are correct Stanley couldn't create his own shot , other than just jumping above someone close to the basket. However, the only time he did not have someone effectively attempt to freeze him out of the offense was when Jerome was injured during the 2009 F4 run. By no coincidence that was Stanley's best basketball by far.

Kemba and AJ both playing together with the team shared the ball with Stanley at the right time/spots - which he needed since he did not create his own shot. That feeling of being accepted and not punked down also got Stanley's rebound numbers up. I always said with Stanley it's all about the guards getting him the ball in the right spots at the right time and being accepted by teammates. Playing with Bigs and guards who like to run (who did not turn over the ball) helped as well.

I think Stanley could still make the NBA if he played with the right point guard and dedicated himself more to learning the plays, etc.
I agree that Stanley's best basketball coming after Jerome's injury is no coincidence. All those extra minutes really boosted his numbers. Minutes:total statistics probably has a correlation coefficient of about 1 in basketball.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2011
Messages
909
Reaction Score
329
Stanley Robinson . . . He wasn't a great athlete compared the guys he was competing against. I was right when I said this 4 years ago, and I am still right today.

Frankly, you were an idiot when you said that 4 years ago, and you're still an idiot today.

He was an athlete at a higher level than all the other guys on the court. 38" vertical, 7 foot wingspan, extremely quick off the floor (an ability not revealed in any combine measurement), a 35% shooter from 3. That he didn't have the head game to use all of his gifts is not relevant to whether he had them.

And don't speak for this board. Nobody here said that he was "stupid" or "lazy" for not putting up bigger numbers - those are your words. I, and I'd guess others, ascribed his lack of production and disappearing acts to a general lack of ambition/aggression/confidence/fear of the hook on the court.

Of course, what virtually every person reading this post, except you, understands, is that you don't need a f----ing weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

To have seen Stan play just a few games, that's all it would take a person with an even marginal IQ measure to determine that he was a lovable physical freak. Put K. Free's brain in that body and you'd rival Jordan.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,552
Reaction Score
19,987
Stanley Robinson was a good player and a great dunker, nothing more. 80% of the board ascribed superhuman athletic ability to him, and then implied he was stupid and/or lazy when he didn't dominate. He was just a good athlete by Big East standards, and just a good player. He wasn't a great athlete compared the guys he was competing against, and he isn't stupid and/or lazy because he is not in the NBA.

I was right when I said this 4 years ago, and I am still right today.

An athlete is someone who has great natural ability. The vast majority of 6-7 or 6-8 wings can't jump as high or as fast as Stanley can, therefore you're wrong.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,709
Reaction Score
38,326
Frankly, you were an idiot when you said that 4 years ago, and you're still an idiot today.

He was an athlete at a higher level than all the other guys on the court. 38" vertical, 7 foot wingspan, extremely quick off the floor (an ability not revealed in any combine measurement), a 35% shooter from 3. That he didn't have the head game to use all of his gifts is not relevant to whether he had them.

And don't speak for this board. Nobody here said that he was "stupid" or "lazy" for not putting up bigger numbers - those are your words. I, and I'd guess others, ascribed his lack of production and disappearing acts to a general lack of ambition/aggression/confidence/fear of the hook on the court.

Of course, what virtually every person reading this post, except you, understands, is that you don't need a f----ing weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

To have seen Stan play just a few games, that's all it would take a person with an even marginal IQ measure to determine that he was a lovable physical freak. Put K. Free's brain in that body and you'd rival Jordan.

Two sentences after you say he was a higher level athlete than ALL THE OTHER GUYS ON THE COURT, you say he didn't have the head game (i.e. stupid/lazy). You can't have it both ways. Either he is a great athlete who is stupid/lazy, or he isn't the great athlete that you guys claim he is. We aren't talking about competing in pickup games in the field house, we are talking about competing against some of the best athletes in the country. Against those guys, he was and is nothing special.

Most on this board confuse dunking with athleticism. Sticks was downright slow compared to other starting wings, and he wasn't super fast off the floor. He rarely beat other players one on one, and was an above average defender, but certainly not a great one. Great athletes are almost always great defenders, because it is easy for them, so lack of prowess on that end is indicative. Ironically, where Sticks was most effective later in his career at UConn was posting up, something that took a lot of work and frankly, intelligence to master. His go to move was a post up turnaround, hardly the move of a superlative athlete as you and others claim.

But keep on insulting his intelligence to win an argument. I find it amazing what "fans" on this board will do to make their point.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,709
Reaction Score
38,326
An athlete is someone who has great natural ability. The vast majority of 6-7 or 6-8 wings can't jump as high or as fast as Stanley can, therefore you're wrong.

Because you say so? Because Desmond paraphrased a scout or repeated something he read on a blog? Scouts say all kinds of things. Do you have any objective evidence, such as Sticks playing in the NBA, to prove your point? Because if he was the superlative athlete you claim, shouldn't some team have taken a flyer on him and given him a few years to develop?
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
27,552
Reaction Score
19,987
Because you say so? Because Desmond paraphrased a scout or repeated something he read on a blog? Scouts say all kinds of things. Do you have any objective evidence, such as Sticks playing in the NBA, to prove your point? Because if he was the superlative athlete you claim, shouldn't some team have taken a flyer on him and given him a few years to develop?

Yes, there's objective evidence, like Stanley jumping so high the rim was at his navel. You don't see that often.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
11,292
Reaction Score
8,030
Stanley Robinson was a good player and a great dunker, nothing more. 80% of the board ascribed superhuman athletic ability to him, and then implied he was stupid and/or lazy when he didn't dominate. He was just a good athlete by Big East standards, and just a good player. He wasn't a great athlete compared the guys he was competing against, and he isn't stupid and/or lazy because he is not in the NBA.

I was right when I said this 4 years ago, and I am still right today.
I think his dunks earned him much more acclaim than he really deserved. Many were spectacular, but the rest of his game ranged form just ok to good. As for this spectacular athlete stuff, I just don't think it was all that accurate. He could jump and he could dunk in spectacular fashion, but we've had lots of guys who were better athletes and lots of guys who were better basketball players. The other thing I'd say about Stanley Robinson, and it is just an impression, is that basketball wasn't the be all and end all of his life. Maybe if it had been he's have been a better player, maybe not. But I never had the sense that he lived to play the next game like you get from some guys. Bottom line is that he was a good, not great player.
 

The Funster

What?
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,950
Reaction Score
4,648
I don't think Sticks was stupid or lazy. I think he was just too passive. I think he was a fantastic athlete, maybe one of the most athletic to ever attend UConn. He has all the physical tools, he just doesn't seem to have the aggressiveness or confidence to make the best use of those tools. Their games were different but I equate Robinson with Kirk King. King was an outstanding physical specimen and should have been a star but he didn't (for lack of a better term) trust in himself enough to just let it all hang out.
 

ConnHuskBask

Shut Em Down!
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,995
Reaction Score
14,054
Prezident, that was an awesome post above about Stanley. Really not much more you can say about him than that. Sometimes, because we're fans and this is OUR passion automatically assume that it's everyone of the player's passions as well. Stanley played hard, but if you're not 100% invested into something, than it's just not meant to be. Always will be one of my favorites though.

Nelson, give it up. I feel like you can't even be serious and are just trolling the Boneyard. Every UConn fan, announcer, analyst and scout agreed that Stanley was a hell of an athlete and yet you know more than everyone. Right.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,339
Reaction Score
4,141
Because you say so? Because Desmond paraphrased a scout or repeated something he read on a blog? Scouts say all kinds of things. Do you have any objective evidence, such as Sticks playing in the NBA, to prove your point? Because if he was the superlative athlete you claim, shouldn't some team have taken a flyer on him and given him a few years to develop?

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...012_1_magic-roster-daniel-orton-orlando-magic

Magic officials love Robinson's athletic ability — he can jump out of the gym — and they feel he can become a good rebounder and good defender.

You've settled into being Palatine V2 - at least he gave it up when the ND series was off!
 

Fishy

Puncher of Throats
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
16,806
Reaction Score
59,193
Stanley Robinson was a superior athlete - superior. Quite frankly, you have to be a complete duck*ing moron to think otherwise.

He's just not a great basketball player. His athleticism keeps him in the conversation, but it's not quite enough - there are great athletes who can't quite make it in the NBA and there are some rather marginal athletes who thrive. There's a lot of moving parts involved in making an NBA player and I suspect some of it is of the 'secret sauce' variety that can't quite be explained. (e.g. Bill Lambeer plays sixteen pretty productive years and guys who look the part like Olowokandi or Kwame Brown basically stink.)

Stanley is a very good basketball player, he's just not good enough to make millions at it. It happens.
 

nelsonmuntz

Point Center
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
40,709
Reaction Score
38,326
The Kirk King analogy is an interesting one. I believe that Kirk King and Tony Robertson have the two highest measured verticals of any UConn player ever. I believe they both did over 40". King was also a great leaper who was also just a good athlete compared to his peers. Sticks had much more all around game than King.

I may be missing someone, but in my opinion, Gay, Robertson and Burrell may be the best pure athletes UConn has ever had. Robertson had all the tools, but it just wasn't important enough to him. No one was quicker end to end of the floor, and he EXPLODED off the ground for dunks. I don't think there is much debate around Gay or Burrell, and the NBA would agree with me on both, and on Sticks for that matter.

When I think of player control athleticism, I think of guys like Hamilton and Allen, who had insane body control in traffic. Donyell and Khalid were similar, if not quite the same level. They were at full speed with the ball and without. Sticks often had to gather himself when he would get a pass. What part of that is skill and what is athleticism is a gray area, but when you are going to call someone a "great" athlete, those are the benchmarks.

In case people forget why I argued Sticks was not a great athlete, the debate started around the departure of Marcus Johnson, who I thought was more explosive than Sticks and a much quicker player. Sticks was a little more skilled when MJ transferred, but I had wished he had stayed. With two more years under Calhoun, who knows who would have been the better player of the two.
 

Dann

#4hunnid
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
9,921
Reaction Score
3,614
this has potential to be one of those great BYtastic threads.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,339
Reaction Score
4,141
Just when I though you couldn't dig yourself any deeper...

You actually put Stanley and El-Amin in the same thread, when talking about athleticism.

I know, you'll tell me I'm misreading your qualifier about "player control athleticism," whatever the #$%^#$%^# you think that is. Either way, I don't think I need to comment further - Fishy's already made it clear.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
754
Reaction Score
465
During his metal works hiatus I had the happenstance to chat with him at a game. Very nice and respectable kid and very sweet. Quite frankly, how another player in his class treated him for 4 years, hurt his development. The other posters are correct Stanley couldn't create his own shot , other than just jumping above someone close to the basket. However, the only time he did not have someone effectively attempt to freeze him out of the offense was when Jerome was injured during the 2009 F4 run. By no coincidence that was Stanley's best basketball by far.

Kemba and AJ both playing together with the team shared the ball with Stanley at the right time/spots - which he needed since he did not create his own shot. That feeling of being accepted and not punked down also got Stanley's rebound numbers up. I always said with Stanley it's all about the guards getting him the ball in the right spots at the right time and being accepted by teammates. Playing with Bigs and guards who like to run (who did not turn over the ball) helped as well.

I think Stanley could still make the NBA if he played with the right point guard and dedicated himself more to learning the plays, etc.

can you elaborate at all? thx...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
614
Total visitors
827

Forum statistics

Threads
170,460
Messages
4,219,097
Members
9,129
Latest member
nilesa


Top Bottom