Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/index.php)
-   NBA Draft Forum (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=40)
-   -   John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=176418)

TheTruth11 05-31-2010 09:23 PM

John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
John Wall

Wall: ..... No Step Vertical = 30"

Wall: ..... Max Vertical = 39"

Wall: ..... Sprint = 3.14



By comparison Derrick Rose

Rose: .... No Step Vertical = 34.5"

Rose: .... Max Vertical = 40" ......... (now 43/44)

Rose: ..... Sprint = 3.05:eek: .......... Blazing fast!!!



Okay, can we now put the Wall to Rose comparisons to rest??? Wall is no Rose. And no, Wall is not the greatest athlete ever at the point guard position as some have hyped him to be. Rose is. Rose beat Wall in all the measureables in which explosiveness and athleticism are typically measured. Rose jumps higher and runs faster. And, in fact, it is not even close.

Wall was hyped all year as being "sooooo fast!" Game in and game out, all we kept hearing about was how John Wall was possibly the fastest player ever at the point guard position. In the sprint, it wasn't even close. Not only would Rose beat Wall.... Rose would dust Wall!

Rose is a blurr:bowdown: And he has springs for legs.

Wall is a good athlete. But he is no Rose.


Still, Wall could end up being a great basketball player. But the debate who is the best athlete at the point guard position is now settled. And that title belongs to DRose baby. :pimp:

magnax1 05-31-2010 09:26 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Pretty similar #'s
With the ball though, Wall is considerably faster then Rose.

Freshprince619 05-31-2010 09:28 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
I have a hard time beliveing your vertical increasing 9 inches from max to no step

scott0326 05-31-2010 09:30 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Good point, the verticals obviously makes Rose the better player. Nothing else has to do with it and this should definitely quite the talks of Wall being better or as good.

Derka 05-31-2010 09:33 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
So in a non-game environment, Rose jumped higher than Wall and sprinted faster. Therefore, Derek Rose is a better basketball player.

This makes perfect sense.

zizozain 05-31-2010 09:41 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 

Go Getter 05-31-2010 10:10 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
I still can't believe that Sonny Weems posted a 2.96 in the sprint.


Lol@people saying Wall is CONSIDERABLY faster with the ball than Rose.


I saw Rose play in Utah his rookie season and he got a loose ball with the rest of the field a step or two behind him.

One dribble [long] dribble and you could tell no one had a shot at catching him.

Wall is fast too...I'm sick of people saying Rose is faster or Wall is faster or Harris, or Lawson because A. you can't tell by just eyeballing B. It doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme.

The OP is right though. Wall is a special athlete but not the best ever at the PG position like advertised.

The combination of his length and athleticism is a good sign for his career though....once his hops and speed diminish he can still fall back on his great length and skill with the ball.

Go Getter 05-31-2010 10:12 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Derka
So in a non-game environment, Rose jumped higher than Wall and sprinted faster. Therefore, Derek Rose is a better basketball player.

This makes perfect sense.



Please read carefully.

The OP had nothing to do with who is a better player the OP has to do with the hype surrounding Wall's athleticism.

Foster5k 05-31-2010 10:13 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
With that logic Jordan Farmar, with a 42inch vertical, is better than Rose.

/thread

Go Getter 05-31-2010 10:32 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster5k
With that logic Jordan Farmar, with a 42inch vertical, is better than Rose.

/thread



No one said anything about being a better player man be serious.

Wall has the potential to be an all-time great...saying that he's not the best athlete ever at the PG position has nothing to do with his game and more to do with his hype.

BigTicket 05-31-2010 10:37 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Lets have a look at the best combine numbers since 2001:

No Step Vert:
Nick Young (2007) - 39.5 inches

Max Vert:
Kenny Gregory (2001) - 45.5 inches.

Sprint:
Cookie Belcher (2001) - 2.91 seconds

Agility Test:
Jamison Brewer (2001) - 9.65 seconds

Bench:
Jason Keep (2003) - 27 repetitions

Unless someone wants to argue that those 5 are superstars, perhaps we should look at something other than combine numbers to determine who's the best player ? :banghead:

And yes, there really was a player named Cookie Belcher (worst name ever ?).

Go Getter 05-31-2010 10:44 PM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigTicket
Lets have a look at the best combine numbers since 2001:

No Step Vert:
Nick Young (2007) - 39.5 inches

Max Vert:
Kenny Gregory (2001) - 45.5 inches.

Sprint:
Cookie Belcher (2001) - 2.91 seconds

Agility Test:
Jamison Brewer (2001) - 9.65 seconds

Bench:
Jason Keep (2003) - 27 repetitions

Unless someone wants to argue that those 5 are superstars, perhaps we should look at something other than combine numbers to determine who's the best player ? :banghead:

And yes, there really was a player named Cookie Belcher (worst name ever ?).



Yet another poster who cannot comprehend what they read.

tgan3 06-04-2010 12:09 AM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
[quote=TheTruth11]John Wall

Wall: ..... No Step Vertical = 30"

Wall: ..... Max Vertical = 39"

Wall: ..... Sprint = 3.14



By comparison Derrick Rose

Rose: .... No Step Vertical = 34.5"

Rose: .... Max Vertical = 40" ......... (now 43/44)

Rose: ..... Sprint = 3.05:eek: .......... Blazing fast!!!



seriously, except for the no step vertical the numbers are pretty close. Wall has almost 2 inches on Rose and also a longer wingspan. Also sprint times aren't necessary relate to how fast one is on the court. Wall is fast with the ball period.

I would say those two would become comapred alot in the NBA.

plowking 06-05-2010 12:40 AM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Dwyane Wade recorded a quicker sprint time than John Wall, though there is no way in hell he's quicker than Wall with or without the ball.
He must have just had a bad run, or in all honesty, just doesn't want to go to the Wizards.

Go Getter 06-05-2010 03:59 AM

Re: John Wall's "official" COMBINE NUMBERS are in
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by plowking
Dwyane Wade recorded a quicker sprint time than John Wall, though there is no way in hell he's quicker than Wall with or without the ball.
He must have just had a bad run, or in all honesty, just doesn't want to go to the Wizards.



You can't really tel how fast someone is by sight. Some people run faster than they are given credit for particularly "long-striders"...they get under estimated compared to those "piston leg" runners.

H. Bolt doesn't look like he's that fast until you put a clock on the bottom of the screen and runner beside him.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy