Michael Beasley vs Blake Griffin

[QUOTE=JohnnySic]Yeah but if he's gonna be a full time 3 that's another level of skill required when teams will be guarding him outside more closely.[/QUOTE]
Everyone compared him to Carmelo Anthony as a 3 coming out of HS and at Kansas State.

I will hold true to my Al Harrington comparison for Beasley, the only difference is that Beasley earlier on in his career is more productive and has a bigger role than Harrington did.

As long as Beasley can continue to hit his midrange shot & shoot from 3 he will be successful in the NBA as a tweener SF/PF, if he develops a good pumpfake to attack the basket going to his left he would have a very good Go-To move.

[QUOTE=unbreakable]I remember people saying the same thing about Lebron James when he dominated HS.. even Jordan said "Lets see what he does in the NBA"..

Howd that turn out, Gobbie? :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

Beasley overpowered his opponents in college to. That was one of the factors many GM's considered whether if it would translate to the NBA game. Seeing as they're the same weight, you work it out.

Stop saying Beasley and Griffin play the same position.. Beasley is a 3..

Griffin is a legitimate PF.. mix Amare's beastiness with Duncan's skillset and you got Griffin.. the man, the myth, the LEGEND.

[QUOTE=Interminator]Everyone compared him to Carmelo Anthony as a 3 coming out of HS and at Kansas State.

I will hold true to my Al Harrington comparison for Beasley, the only difference is that Beasley earlier on in his career is more productive and has a bigger role than Harrington did.

As long as Beasley can continue to hit his midrange shot & shoot from 3 he will be successful in the NBA as a tweener SF/PF, if he develops a good pumpfake to attack the basket going to his left he would have a very good Go-To move.[/QUOTE]

Beasley is already a better scorer, more efficient scorer, rebounder, defender, athletic, mid range shooter then Harrington ever was.

[QUOTE=plowking]So people are saying next year Griffin will already be a better player then Beasley?

It's a fair comparison. Both the same age, and play the same position. We'll see who does better.

[B]And I'm baffled at how these statements came about proclaiming Griffin a good defender. lol[/B][/QUOTE]
Griffin really held back when defending, you could see that he was holding back. He would just stick his arms and not move or make any kind of play on the ball. But when you're the most powerful player in college ball and can just run through anything and everything that gets in your path, you're team is going to need you to stay on the court and play.

[QUOTE=unbreakable]Stop saying Beasley and Griffin play the same position.. Beasley is a 3..

Griffin is a legitimate PF.. mix Amare's beastiness with Duncan's skillset and you got Griffin.. the man, the myth, the LEGEND.[/QUOTE]

Legend? :oldlol:

Beasley is already better then him at the same age. 1 year of NBA experience to none as well.

[QUOTE=plowking]
And I'm baffled at how these statements came about proclaiming Griffin a good defender. lol[/QUOTE]
Because literally he stopped everybody he matched up against, its one thing to be able to roam and block shots & get steals in the passing lane but when you can completely take your man out of the equation on defense like Griffin did most of the time its hard not to consider him a good defender.

I saw it earlier in the year when he took Luke Nevill, one of the best C's in the country, completely out of the game against Utah.

[url]http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/players/profile?playerId=3418[/url]

See that unbreakable. It says PF, the same position as Griffin.

[QUOTE=Interminator]Because literally he stopped everybody he matched up against, its one thing to be able to roam and block shots & get steals in the passing lane but when you can completely take your man out of the equation on defense like Griffin did most of the time its hard not to consider him a good defender.

I saw it earlier in the year when he took Luke Nevill, one of the best C's in the country, completely out of the game against Utah.[/QUOTE]

What about when he matched up against Beasley? How many did Beasley drop again? I think it was 32; with the game winning layup.

[QUOTE=plowking]Beasley is already a better scorer, more efficient scorer, rebounder, defender, athletic, mid range shooter then Harrington ever was.[/QUOTE]
Of course he is statistically when comparing 1 season to 11, but if you actually could take your eyes off of someone other than Beasley you would realize the similarities in their games.

Harrington's efficiency ranks lower than Beasley for 1 reason, he takes many 3's due to the systems he has played in while Beasley does not but shows the potential to do so with his range and his inability to play in the post.

[QUOTE=Interminator]Of course he is statistically when comparing 1 season to 11, but if you actually could take your eyes off of someone other than Beasley you would realize the similarities in their games.

Harrington's efficiency ranks lower than Beasley for 1 reason, he takes many 3's due to the systems he has played in while Beasley does not but shows the potential to do so with his range and his inability to play in the post.[/QUOTE]

Beasley currently works better off the elbow then he does the low block. Much like KG. Likes that jumper. That's what his current offensive game looks like to me, with a bit more range, and slightly worse in the post due to lack of weight. Once he fills out, he should be 260 - 270lbs and be a beast inside as well.

[QUOTE=zabuza666]What about when he matched up against Beasley? How many did Beasley drop again? I think it was 32; with the game winning layup.[/QUOTE]
What?

They didn't even guard each other for 1/2 of the game, Beasley was guarded by Longar Longar for most of the game I watched it unlike you.

Griffin matched up against Bill Walker or whoever else they brought in but there were only few instances where Beasley & Griffin were matched up together and neither dominated the other.

Beasley finished with 32/11 with 8 turnovers
Griffin finished with 27/14 with 4 turnovers

[QUOTE=plowking]He will need to shoot 94% off midrange jumpshots if he wants to be effective at the 3. :rolleyes: :oldlol:[/QUOTE]

I think he can be effective at the three or four. I've seen him take players of the dribble to get to the basket effectively. I'm sure with work he could be a nice finisher. He has the ability to play the three already because his mid-range game is so good already. He has the ability to play the four similiar to Antoino Walker, but with a better mid-range game.

Leave out some stats did you Interminator?

I don't understand how people are so low on Beasley. I mean I'm fine with itm though I am yet to get a reasonable explanation.

How is a guy that averaged 14 and 5 in 24 minutes going to always be a tweener and struggle as some have put? In starter minutes, that's about 20 and 8 based on 38 or so minutes a game. So explain to me how he is going to be horrible when that is his rookie production.

[QUOTE=plowking]Beasley currently works better off the elbow then he does the low block. Much like KG. Likes that jumper. That's what his current offensive game looks like to me, with a bit more range, and slightly worse in the post due to lack of weight. Once he fills out, he should be 260 - 270lbs and be a beast inside as well.[/QUOTE]
Slightly worse in the post due to lack of weight?

Im sorry but was KG not about 220-230 early on in his career before bulking up, if we're talking about as young players.

Beasley will not be a beast inside, the guys who are a beast inside the post are beasts from day 1 you dont just develop into a beast in the post after 5 or 6 years even if he fills out in terms of his weight.

You really think 30-40+ pounds is not going to have a negative effect on Beasley?:roll: :roll:
Wow there goes the Derrick Coleman comparisons.

Being fat does not make you a post presence if you lack post skills, which Beasley to this point lacks.

At best you can hope for him to develop his body over the summer like Josh Smith,Dwight Howard, & Tyrus Thomas have done by gaining more muscle mass instead of adding fat, but considering its basketball I would say 5-10 lbs of muscle is achievable during the offseason with a disciplined workout routine,diet,and a personal trainer.

How he returns next season will show his work ethic, some have questioned it but if he works to improve then they can't use that excuse.

[QUOTE=plowking]Leave out some stats did you Interminator?[/quote]
No stats left out I checked ESPN to make sure they were correct.
0 Assists 8 Turnovers for Beasley, if thats what you are upset over.


[quote]
I don't understand how people are so low on Beasley. I mean I'm fine with itm though I am yet to get a reasonable explanation.

How is a guy that averaged 14 and 5 in 24 minutes going to always be a tweener and struggle as some have put? In starter minutes, that's about 20 and 8 based on 38 or so minutes a game. So explain to me how he is going to be horrible when that is his rookie production.[/QUOTE]
I never said he is going to struggle.

If he can find a sanctuary on the perimeter like other 3/4 guys have done.

He only played in 38 minutes or more 7 games last season, you're guessing off of too small of a sample which varied from a 17 point effort against Boston on 37%FG to a 28 point effort against New York on 62%FG.

If he can hold up averaging 20/8 in 38 minutes(unlikely) for an entire 82 game season we can argue about it, until then you can't pass that off as fact.

[QUOTE=Interminator]No stats left out I checked ESPN to make sure they were correct.
0 Assists 8 Turnovers for Beasley, if thats what you are upset over.



I never said he is going to struggle.

If he can find a sanctuary on the perimeter like other 3/4 guys have done.

He only played in 38 minutes or more 7 games last season, you're guessing off of too small of a sample which varied from a 17 point effort against Boston on 37%FG to a 28 point effort against New York on 62%FG.

If he can hold up averaging 20/8 in 38 minutes(unlikely) for an entire 82 game season we can argue about it, until then you can't pass that off as fact.[/QUOTE]

Yet the only time he is given playing time he put up 20, 9 and 2, and even that was in 30mpg. 8 games is a big enough sample to show us what he can do, and it certainly indicates what he would do if given starters minutes.

At the start of the season when he was a far worse player then he is now, he was averaging 18 and 8 in about 32 minutes of play.

Anyways I'll leave with this post. At worst I see Beasley becoming a David West type player.

[QUOTE=plowking]Anyways I'll leave with this post. At worst I see Beasley becoming a David West type player.[/QUOTE]
So no matter what he will be a Top 10 PF in the NBA in your opinion?

Why will Blake be better that Beasley: Beasley mopes around court like someone just killed his dog, Blake does : [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAIMbfZzYlI[/url] And that was his first game back from a concussion.

Beasley reminds me of Tim Thomas in terms of his focus and dedication: amazing tools, but no heart, no will, and only token defensive effort. He couldn't start on a team who's best big was Udonis Haslem for most of the year...that's just sad. And I doubt Blake gets kicked out of the rookie symposium for smoking weed.

Blake has less offensive skill, but he plays like an animal and gives everything he has in practice and off court training. If his coach told him to he wasn't getting the ball and his job was to just rebound and block shots he'd do it.

You can't coach desire and will into a player, and the league is littered with talented headcases that drifted through their NBA careers putting up numbers, but never scratching their true potential. Beasley might have higher potential (debatable) but Blake is far more likely to reach his.

[QUOTE=Interminator]So no matter what he will be a Top 10 PF in the NBA in your opinion?[/QUOTE]

Yep and will be by next season.

To Valliant, you honestly think Beasley is worse then Haslem? Haslem is a glorified bench player, who has been helped throughout his career by Shaq and Alonzo as they were able to cover the glaring defensive holes in his game.

The only reason he wasn't starting was due to Haslem being a captain of the team.

[QUOTE=plowking]Yep and will be by next season.

To Valliant, you honestly think Beasley is worse then Haslem?[B] Haslem is a glorified bench player[/B], who has been helped throughout his career by Shaq and Alonzo as they were able to cover the glaring defensive holes in his game.

[B]The only reason he wasn't starting was due to Haslem being a captain of the team.[/B][/QUOTE]

OR...that he refused to be defensively accountable so Spolestra (sp) would nail him to the bench. And I completely agree that Haslem is glorified bench player...someone that a person of Beasely talent (and he is immensely talented) should easily have been able to supplant...but he was immature, lazy on defense, and played selfishly on offense.

Do you really think a Rookie coach, playing to keep his first NBA job, would let a inferior player start out of respect for him being a captain? Over his superhyped #2 pick? Or maybe that player was so immature and stubborn that nailing his ass to the bench was the only way the coach could see to try and teach him some respect for winning ball.

I don't think Beasley is bad...when he plays hard and is focused he is amazing. Fantastic hands and amazing touch on his jumper and around the rim. But it takes more than talent to succeed, especially when you measure success as something more than your individual statistics.

I'll take Beasley. More impressive skill set and much higher ceiling.

[QUOTE=OneMoreSucka]I think Griffin. Just something about the way he plays. He has the killer instinct that Beasley currently lacks.[/QUOTE]

This is true. He has the determination to do w/e it takes to win. That's what seperate good players from great players.

[QUOTE=Valliant13]OR...that he refused to be defensively accountable so Spolestra (sp) would nail him to the bench. And I completely agree that Haslem is glorified bench player...someone that a person of Beasely talent (and he is immensely talented) should easily have been able to supplant...but he was immature, lazy on defense, and played selfishly on offense.

Do you really think a Rookie coach, playing to keep his first NBA job, would let a inferior player start out of respect for him being a captain? Over his superhyped #2 pick? Or maybe that player was so immature and stubborn that nailing his ass to the bench was the only way the coach could see to try and teach him some respect for winning ball.

I don't think Beasley is bad...when he plays hard and is focused he is amazing. Fantastic hands and amazing touch on his jumper and around the rim. But it takes more than talent to succeed, especially when you measure success as something more than your individual statistics.[/QUOTE]
On a team loaded with rookies and young players and the mission of getting to the playoffs, the rookie coach went with his veteran/team captain to help provide leadership.

Beasley's a better player than Haslem, not as consistent, but he was a rookie.

I have a question for you. Who played better defense in the Hawks series?

[QUOTE=HiphopRelated]On a team loaded with rookies and young players and the mission of getting to the playoffs, the rookie coach went with his veteran/team captain to help provide leadership.

Beasley's a better player than Haslem, not as consistent, but he was a rookie.

I have a question for you. [B]Who played better defense in the Hawks series?[/B][/QUOTE]

Neither played much...but Beasley was better. Though that says more about how limited Haslem is against extremely athletic front court players, that any defesive awaking by Beasley. Still, I will give him credit, Beasley was only player aisde from D-Wade that brought anything on offense on a consistent basis in the series. The kid does have talent, and if maturity suddenly strikes him he will be an excellent offensive player...but I suspect Blake will be much butter all round player.

I don't see the Duncan comparisons at all. A short A'mare makes more sense to me, or Kenyon Martin when he came out.

Baron Davis
Eric Gordon
Blake Griffin

Is such a nice core to build around. Their pieces are just so hard to move. However, talk about physicality with those 3...

Isn't Griffin taller than Amare? Griffin is 6'9", 6'10" in shoes according to most sources. I thought Amare was 6'8" and 6'9" in shoes.

[QUOTE=Darius]Isn't Griffin taller than Amare? Griffin is 6'9", 6'10" in shoes according to most sources. I thought Amare was 6'8" and 6'9" in shoes.[/QUOTE]

At this point it's just speculation. The hard evidence is a journalist who knows a guy who saw Blake get measured. Until the predraft camp measurement I'm taking it all with a grain of salt. Either 6'8 or 6'9 wouldn't surprise me. Even 6'7 or 6'10 wouldn't be a complete shock...height manipulation in the NCAA is all over the place for a variety of reason.

[QUOTE=Darius]Isn't Griffin taller than Amare? Griffin is 6'9", 6'10" in shoes according to most sources. I thought Amare was 6'8" and 6'9" in shoes.[/QUOTE]

Amare measured 6'8.5'' w/o shoes at the pre-draft. I might be underestimating Griffin's height because he's built a little stockier.

just thought i would bump this