- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction Score
- 338
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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?
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.
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.