Even the people who were great by modern or any standard didnt put up numbers suggesting it in those days. Bird went 11/52 the year that video was from.
It just wasnt a big part of the game.
Printable View
Even the people who were great by modern or any standard didnt put up numbers suggesting it in those days. Bird went 11/52 the year that video was from.
It just wasnt a big part of the game.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Even the people who were great by modern or any standard didnt put up numbers suggesting it in those days. Bird went 11/52 the year that video was from.
It just wasnt a big part of the game.[/QUOTE]
I've read that during a player's college tenure that if you took a 3 point shot, you're coaches and teammates would frown upon it. It was probably looked at as a last resort on team offenses early on before it finally started to get utilized more.
[QUOTE=tontoz]Personally i can't watch vids at work. Griffith was certainly a good source of highlights. But i think his actual production is getting a bit overrated in this thread.[/QUOTE]
How am I overrating him? first post:
[QUOTE]He was everything the modern super athlete combo guard is.
Eye popping athletic ability, head scratching shot selection(or so complained some of the league....), and concerns that his team isnt quiiiiite what it could be if it had a more traditional guard.
Despite what all this may suggest [B]my point isnt how great he was....but how great he wasnt[/B].[/QUOTE]
Look at the people I compared him to. Westbrook has only made 70 threes one season of his career. I called him an athletic guard with range but shaky shot selection along the lines of todays athletic combo guards. Rose can shoot btu hardly does numbers. Westbrook I mentioned. I compared him to that kind of player...said he wasnt all that good...
Not like I said he was a superstar or some statistical monster. I said he started the trend that led to modern guards. As you put it....respectable 3 point shooter. He was a respectable 3 point shooter by modern standards when everyone grew up shooting them.
But he was that 30 years ago.
All I was saying.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Even the people who were great by modern or any standard didnt put up numbers suggesting it in those days. Bird went 11/52 the year that video was from.
It just wasnt a big part of the game.[/QUOTE]
Bird also shot 40% as a rookie and 37.6% for his career as a big man.
In terms of 3 pt attempts DG was certainly ahead of his time. He just wasn't that good of a shooter from anywhere other than near the rim.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]How am I overrating him? first post:
[/QUOTE]
If you read my post you can see that i said he is being overrated in the thread, not necessarily in the OP.
He barely went to the rim. He was a midrange scorer outside the break. I remember him. Not at his peak(which many would say was in college). But I do remember him. He was a good shooter off the pullup. Im not sure why people even gave him room for it considering that he drove and turned back half the time.
Granted...I remember him after his injuries. But he was a nice stop and pop shooter.
There is a reason that with all that athletic ability he was shooting 3 FTs a game.
He was always a pullup jumper guy. and a really good one.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]How am I overrating him? first post:
Look at the people I compared him to. Westbrook has only made 70 threes one season of his career. I called him an athletic guard with range but shaky shot selection along the lines of todays athletic combo guards. Rose can shoot btu hardly does numbers. Westbrook I mentioned. I compared him to that kind of player...said he wasnt all that good...
Not like I said he was a superstar or some statistical monster. I said he started the trend that led to modern guards. As you put it....respectable 3 point shooter. He was a respectable 3 point shooter by modern standards when everyone grew up shooting them.
But he was that 30 years ago.
All I was saying.[/QUOTE]
Yes, as a predecessor of things to come. An influence that had far reaching affects. Isiah influenced a whole generation of dribblers. I think a lot of people think things just happen when they start watching the game.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]He barely went to the rim. He was a midrange scorer outside the break. I remember him. Not at his peak(which many would say was in college). But I do remember him. He was a good shooter off the pullup. Im not sure why people even gave him room for it considering that he drove and turned back half the time.
Granted...I remember him after his injuries. But he was a nice stop and pop shooter.
There is a reason that with all that athletic ability he was shooting 3 FTs a game.
He was always a pullup jumper guy. and a really good one.[/QUOTE]
If he was such a strong jump shooter then i would think he could manage better than 71% from the line and 46% from the field.
Most likely he was high 30s, low 40s at best from midrange. His lack of handles is probably the main reason why he was settling for jumpers.
Everyone considered a good shooter is a low 40s midrange shooter. Thats why people like Jordan in his mid and late Bulls run shot 47-50% despite a good number of layups. You dont knock down half your pullup jumpers and fadeaways. Kobe shoots what midrange? 42% or so? 44 maybe? Nobody ever questioned if he was one of the best midrange shooter.
And you talking about the reason he settled for jumpers?
Honestly...have you seen him play one game in your life? I dont care if you were 8. Ever see him play?
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Everyone considered a good shooter is a low 40s midrange shooter. Thats why people like Jordan in his mid and late Bulls run shot 47-50% despite a good number of layups. You dont knock down half your pullup jumpers and fadeaways. Kobe shoots what midrange? 42% or so? 44 maybe? Nobody ever questioned if he was one of the best midrange shooter.
And you talking about the reason he settled for jumpers?
Honestly...have you seen him play one game in your life? I dont care if you were 8. Ever see him play?[/QUOTE]
Yes. I was watching live when Bird and Magic played in the NCAA Finals so i remember Griffith. I lived in the east so i didn't see him as much as i would eastern players. I didn't think he was that good, an elite athlete with average skills.
You said yourself that defenses were letting him shoot those pullup jumpers. there is probably a reason for that. I don't think all defenses at that time were dumb.
I cant speak on the defense of the early 80s west but by the late 80s they didnt really give a shit. Just wanted to get the ball back.
[QUOTE=tontoz]In his first 3 seasons he shot 63/236 from 3. In the 82-83 season he shot 29% on 138 attempts.
He became a respectable 3 point shooter but by modern standards that's all he was. He was never great.
Too his credit he understood the value of the 3 point shot and tried to exploit it. He just wasnt that good of a shooter.
He only shot 71% from the foul line.[/QUOTE]
[B]He was shooting like 36% on more than 3 attempts per game, before he went down to injuries, and he was taking plenty off the dribble, in 1984 was #1 in attempts and %, still shot 37% in 1990 too... For someone who didn't come up with the 3pt line and was never even that great of a mid-range or especially FT shooter, that's good if you'll ask me.
Ofc there were still clearly better 3pt shooters during that time, or dudes that developed better (even by today's standards).. Like Bird, Ellis, Hodges, Tucker, Ainge, Cooper, Scott...... But Darrell Griffith had the freaskishly athleticism combined with the ability to shot them 3's off the dribble and the volume of those.
[/B]
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT][B]He was shooting like 36% on more than 3 attempts per game, before he went down to injuries, and he was taking plenty off the dribble, in 1984 was #1 in attempts and %, still shot 37% in 1990 too... For someone who didn't come up with the 3pt line and was never even that great of a mid-range or especially FT shooter, that's good if you'll ask me.
Ofc there were still clearly better 3pt shooters during that time, or dudes that developed better (even by today's standards).. Like Bird, Ellis, Hodges, Tucker, Ainge, Cooper, Scott...... But Darrell Griffith had the freaskishly athleticism combined with the ability to shot them 3's off the dribble and the volume of those.
[/B][/QUOTE]
His best 3 point shooting came the season before he retired so i am not sure his injury played that big of a role.
He had 3 seasons shooting better than 35% from 3. *yawn*
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT][B]He was shooting like 36% on more than 3 attempts per game, before he went down to injuries, and he was taking plenty off the dribble, in 1984 was #1 in attempts and %, still shot 37% in 1990 too... For someone who didn't come up with the 3pt line and was never even that great of a mid-range or especially FT shooter, that's good if you'll ask me.
Ofc there were still clearly better 3pt shooters during that time, or dudes that developed better (even by today's standards).. Like Bird, Ellis, Hodges, Tucker, Ainge, Cooper, Scott...... But Darrell Griffith had the freaskishly athleticism combined with the ability to shot them 3's off the dribble and the volume of those.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Well said sir! Given the time period, Griff qualified as a very good three point shooter. He was certainly a better three point shooter than some of the freak athletes down the road around his size like Westbrook, Rose, or Wade. Or before his time in Thompson. As u stated it was about his COMBO of very good three ball shooting combined with the freakish athletic ability. Before him, it was NEVER seen before. That's what the OP was trying to say. And I agree!
[QUOTE]Jazz Coach Tom Nissalke likes to tell about his first meeting with Griffith, which occurred a month before the NBA draft. "Here was the best college player in the country," says Nissalke. "We were warned about how much money it would cost us to sign him, but when we went to talk to him he was such a little boy. He asked what our uniforms looked like, if we really traveled first class on planes, whether or not we said a prayer before games. Hell, we never talked about money. He never asked how much he would play or gave any indication of having a big head at all. That's why I was sure he was the player we wanted, and that we would get him signed."[/QUOTE]
Bite the cheap bastards in the ass later when he held out for more money.
[QUOTE]If he was such a strong jump shooter then i would think he could manage better than 71% from the line and 46% from the field. [/QUOTE]
Since when is 46 % for a perimeter player not great? They used to talk about him shooting jumpers from the line because of his mediocre FT shooting.
[QUOTE=tontoz]His best 3 point shooting came the season before he retired so i am not sure his injury played that big of a role.
He had 3 seasons shooting better than 35% from 3. *yawn*[/QUOTE]
[B]False, his best 3pt season was in 1984, when he shot 36% on 3 attempts, leading the league in % and attempts, he was also the 2nd scoring option on the team and pretty good overall scorer, and he was the type of player taking most (3's) off the dribble, stop-n-pop.. After an injury like the one he had, he had to "relearn" how to play, say play in a different style and manner and couldn't be the player he was before or the scorer, not close, not even play as much minutes... In his last couple of seasons he was just another role player, not even scoring double digits or playing more than 20 min, he was shooting like 36% on less than 2.5 attempts (5 per 36min), and by that time he wasn't shooting nearly at an off-the-dribble rate as before, also had Stock running the point.. so that was certainly not his best 3pt shooting season, plus he could focus more on it, plenty of time to develop it more after injury, when he was forced to play differently, and less.
Kobe's best was like 38% on 4 attempts (and he DID come up with the 3pt line, and plays in an era with the 3pt shot much more "integrated")... You gonna call him an average 3pt shooter or something?[/B]
[QUOTE]Bite the cheap bastards in the ass later when he held out for more money.[/QUOTE]
Watching his draft coverage someone asked Utahs GM about his lawyer saying he was a million dollar player....the GM laughed and said they were not going to pay a million dollars.
Ended up 1.4 million I think.
he didn't seem to have the ability to go left in the video shown.
I don't know if I would call him the first "modern guard" because he seemed to be a "combo guard" who is really an undersized shooting guard because I am going to guess his defense wasn't anything spectacular?
How did I guessed that? because again, it didn't seem like he could go left. And while his ability to pull up for jump shots seemed quite impressive because of his high arching shot. Again, that's not a lot to a point guards arsenal. And the fact that you mentioned he relied so much on his 3 point shot that he didn't really drive much even though he was extremely athletic, agreed with my assumption of how bad his assist ratio was.
One thing that separates him shooting form to lets say J.R. Smith, is I think his jump shooting form probably gave him less range, where as J.R. Smith had more range. Judging based on mechanics that is.
If you really asked me, This may had been a guy who if he had truly devoted his time into making himself an elite NBA player, he would have had a few Ray Allen like season. Or Mitch Richmond, another guy I missed out on watching him played but got the impression of what you just described in a richer version.
[QUOTE=GimmeThat]he didn't seem to have the ability to go left in the video shown.
I don't know if I would call him the first "modern guard" because he seemed to be a "combo guard" who is really an undersized shooting guard because I am going to guess his defense wasn't anything spectacular?[/quote]
Defense and ball handling were his biggest weaknesses but improved over time. Certainly a shooting guard. Not undersized when he came into the league nor would he be currently.
[quote]How did I guessed that? because again, it didn't seem like he could go left. And while his ability to pull up for jump shots seemed quite impressive because of his high arching shot. Again, that's not a lot to a point guards arsenal. And the fact that you mentioned he relied so much on his 3 point shot that he didn't really drive much even though he was extremely athletic, agreed with my assumption of how bad his assist ratio was.
One thing that separates him shooting form to lets say J.R. Smith, is I think his jump shooting form probably gave him less range, where as J.R. Smith had more range. Judging based on mechanics that is.
If you really asked me, This may had been a guy who if he had truly devoted his time into making himself an elite NBA player, he would have had a few Ray Allen like season. Or Mitch Richmond, another guy I missed out on watching him played but got the impression of what you just described in a richer version.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT][B]False, his best 3pt season was in 1984, when he shot 36% on 3 attempts[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure 37.2% > 36.1%, and he took almost as many attempts in far fewer minutes. on a per minute basis the '89 season was by far his best from 3. He averaged over 5 attempts per 36 minutes played.
[QUOTE=SHAQisGOAT]Actually, going by that notion I can recall Randy Smith, not as well known nor as good as a David Thompson but he was cut from the same cloth and playing already back in 1972.[/QUOTE]
That's exactly who I was going to suggest. There's so little video of him that people just plain don't know who he is, but the guy could fly (there is a video on yotube of him dunking behind hs hed and hitting his head on the rim), could shoot from anywhere, did everything with flair. His performance in the 1978 All Star game (includng two amazing quarter-ending bombs)was unbelievable.
Based on style and skills, an argument could also be made for Walt Frazier, though he purposely never once dunked in an NBA game.
20-4-3 54% TS doesn't scream all-star to me.
Charlie Scott another early modern 2 guard.
In a lot of ways yes. Ive been collecting clips of him for like 10 years hoping to get enough one day to cover him.
Excellent Darrell Griffith highlights. Thanks for putting them together. It can't have been easy to find all those clips.
It's a shame he never lived up to expectations in the league, although he still had a handful of impressive seasons in the pros.
I'd agree with your assessment that he was one of the first modern guards. Certainly he was a lot more athletic than Earl Monroe, if not quite the dribbler. Griffith had similar athleticism to David Thompson but better range on his shot, thus making him more of a modern-day guard.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phkh02wsPAg[/url]
Darrell playing with Stockton and Malone after his injury. You can tell he isnt the same guy...hes doing layups where he used to dunk it. But you can also see why I said the Darrell I watched was a good midrange shooter.
One of his last big games. He gave Drexler 40 a year or so later as well. That was ****ed up hairline Griff.
If he stayed healthy he might have been the extra guy the Jazz always needed. He retired at 32.
Prime or even slightly declined DG on the late 80s/early 90s Jazz would have been trouble. DG or Jeff Malone off the bench and Thurl chipping in?
They may have made their a finals run around 88 or 89.
The only problem with his injury is that it occurred while he was holding out and they held it against him the rest of his career even starting the former 3rd string stiff Bobby Hansen ahead of him.
Jeff Malone sucked too! When they acquired him he was supposed to extend the defense so Karl could work down low. The guy's whole game was 10-15 feet. I would have gave him away and they were able to steal Horny for him!
Didn't have enough depth in '88. They should have beat the Lakers though. Choke!
Yea Jeff was a solid player but hes in the way on a team like the Jazz.
If they had healthy DG playing outside with Jeff coming off the bench when Karl went out they might have made some serious runs.