PDA

View Full Version : Historic point guard arguments



jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 06:37 AM
[QUOTE=. Not your Santangelo's Zags.[/QUOTE]

Why the gratuitous slap at Matt? Who was probably higher rated in h.s. than Norvell.....

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 07:17 AM
Why the gratuitous slap at Matt? Who was probably higher rated in h.s. than Norvell.....

Slap at Matt? Seek for understanding, first. Do you have Matt's recruiting profile? I highly doubt Matt was considered one of the Top 100 players of his class, back then. No slant against Matt. One of the all-time greats. Just responding to your assertions.

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 08:37 AM
Why the gratuitous slap at Matt? Who was probably higher rated in h.s. than Norvell.....

Easy now. Don't shoot down people when they are making comments regarding players they may just be looking at it with critical "non-polly" perspective ;)

sittingon50
02-16-2016, 09:09 AM
Slap at Matt? Seek for understanding, first. Do you have Matt's recruiting profile? I highly doubt Matt was considered one of the Top 100 players of his class, back then. No slant against Matt. One of the all-time greats. Just responding to your assertions.

The Scout site only goes back to 2002 so not sure what Matt's profile was coming out of HS. The story goes though Mike Montgomery had offered both Matt & Arthur Lee scholies & whomever decided 1st got it. Lee did, and started in the Final 4 with the Cardinal & had a very successful career.

Based on that, I'm guessing Matt was pretty highly rated.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 09:50 AM
The Scout site only goes back to 2002 so not sure what Matt's profile was coming out of HS. The story goes though Mike Montgomery had offered both Matt & Arthur Lee scholies & whomever decided 1st got it. Lee did, and started in the Final 4 with the Cardinal & had a very successful career.

Based on that, I'm guessing Matt was pretty highly rated.


Thanks for that, I am sure Coach Crazy will "seek to understand" now. MS was also offered by UCLA when they were UCLA.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 09:53 AM
Slap at Matt? Seek for understanding, first. Do you have Matt's recruiting profile? I highly doubt Matt was considered one of the Top 100 players of his class, back then. No slant against Matt. One of the all-time greats. Just responding to your assertions.


You didn't answer my question. Why did you find it necessary to denigrate MS as a way to put Norvell on a pedestal? Are you saying the recent spate of guards is better than earlier crops?

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 09:54 AM
Easy now. Don't shoot down people when they are making comments regarding players they may just be looking at it with critical "non-polly" perspective ;)

I think Mr. CC, whoever he is, is vying for Board Instigator Supreme, a title I frankly thought you had long retired. Is their room for two Woody Woodpeckers?

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 09:54 AM
The Scout site only goes back to 2002 so not sure what Matt's profile was coming out of HS. The story goes though Mike Montgomery had offered both Matt & Arthur Lee scholies & whomever decided 1st got it. Lee did, and started in the Final 4 with the Cardinal & had a very successful career.

Based on that, I'm guessing Matt was pretty highly rated.

Different day and age as far as recruiting goes. The internet sites if they existed were primitive at best. Street and Smith would have been the the best source in regards to recruiting. I think Matt would have been a top 100 but not ranked as high as Zach Collins. Lots of changes since then. If Matt was playing now with the amount of exposure he for sure would be well up in the rankings. Either way did not matter what he was ranked, he turned out to be a top player college hoops. It would be interesting to look at the top players from 1995.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 10:00 AM
You didn't answer my question. Why did you find it necessary to denigrate MS as a way to put Norvell on a pedestal? Are you saying the recent spate of guards is better than earlier crops?

It wasn't denigrating Matt Santangelo. You're the only one taking it that way. Not placing Norvell on a pedestal. He's the best player at Simeon, an ESPN Top 100, and undervalued. No pedestal. It is what it is. You're taking things too personal.

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 10:07 AM
Actually you are the one who is instigating. You took offense at a perceived, by you and only you, slight of a former player.By doing this you are asserting that it is OK for you to bothered when somebody says something about a player that you do not like or agree with, but others are not allowed to take the same stance. Have you now claimed authority over all posts regarding players? I would venture to say that CC was asserting the the incoming recruiting class is higher ranked then when Matt was a Freshman. And if that is the case he is correct. That would not be an attempt to denigrate, belittle, besmirch, disrespect, or as the kids say throw shade on the career of one Matt Santangelo.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:09 AM
Actually you are the one who is instigating. You took offense at a perceived, by you and only you, slight of a former player.By doing this you are asserting that it is OK for you to bothered when somebody says something about a player that you do not like or agree with, but others are not allowed to take the same stance. Have you now claimed authority over all posts regarding players? I would venture to say that CC was asserting the the incoming recruiting class is higher ranked then when Matt was a Freshman. And if that is the case he is correct. That would not be an attempt to denigrate, belittle, besmirch, disrespect, or as the kids say throw shade on the career of one Matt Santangelo.

Welcome back.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:10 AM
Different day and age as far as recruiting goes. The internet sites if they existed were primitive at best. Street and Smith would have been the the best source in regards to recruiting. I think Matt would have been a top 100 but not ranked as high as Zach Collins. Lots of changes since then. If Matt was playing now with the amount of exposure he for sure would be well up in the rankings. Either way did not matter what he was ranked, he turned out to be a top player college hoops. It would be interesting to look at the top players from 1995.


Player in question is Norvell, not Collins. Keep up. Or maybe all Z's are the same to you.

Mr Vulture
02-16-2016, 10:12 AM
There was nothing "slighting" Santangelo...you are reading into this way to much vandalzag. Coach simply said this is "not Santagelo's Zags", which most would take to mean that the overall talent of the recruits is much higher. He wasn't attacking Santagelo or his abilities...good lord!

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:13 AM
It wasn't denigrating Matt Santangelo. You're the only one taking it that way. Not placing Norvell on a pedestal. He's the best player at Simeon, an ESPN Top 100, and undervalued. No pedestal. It is what it is. You're taking things too personal.

Fine. But what does your statement "not your Santangelos Zags" mean? Sounds judgmental if not perjorative to me. If so, that's fine, too.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 10:14 AM
Different day and age as far as recruiting goes. The internet sites if they existed were primitive at best. Street and Smith would have been the the best source in regards to recruiting. I think Matt would have been a top 100 but not ranked as high as Zach Collins. Lots of changes since then. If Matt was playing now with the amount of exposure he for sure would be well up in the rankings. Either way did not matter what he was ranked, he turned out to be a top player college hoops. It would be interesting to look at the top players from 1995.

It's also not just about Matt. People seem to have missed the point, to some degree. We are going into Simeon and Gorman, now. A white coach from a small school in Spokane. Simeon. That's how far we have come. We also have a kid from Findlay. Couldn't have done that back then. It's ok that we have better players coming out of HS, now. That is the point. As well, a kid like Zack would have been potentially higher back then. Anyway, we can still honor the past, while still admitting that we are in a better place, now. If we can't do that, then this program hasn't done very much.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:15 AM
There was nothing "slighting" Santangelo...you are reading into this way to much vandalzag. Coach simply said this is "not Santagelo's Zags", which most would take to mean that the overall talent of the recruits is much higher. He wasn't attacking Santagelo or his abilities...good lord!

But I don't agree with his contention. Is that ok?

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:20 AM
It's also not just about Matt. People seem to have missed the point, to some degree. We are going into Simeon and Gorman, now. A white coach from a small school in Spokane. Simeon. That's how far we have come. We also have a kid from Findlay. Couldn't have done that back then. It's ok that we have better players coming out of HS, now. That is the point. As well, a kid like Zack would have been potentially higher back then. Anyway, we can still honor the past, while still admitting that we are in a better place, now. If we can't do that, then this program hasn't done very much.


Hype is not a measurement. IMO, the turn of the century guards are light years ahead of the current cast while the contemporary bigs are similarly ahead of the bigs of that day.

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 10:22 AM
Player in question is Norvell, not Collins. Keep up. Or maybe all Z's are the same to you.

So maybe if you paid attention you would see that he phrase was this:
"We have the best Gorman and Simeon player coming to Gonzaga, and a Findlay Prep kid, as well. Not your Santangelo's Zags."
Collins would be the Gorman player he is speaking about. If you need further assistance please let me know.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:23 AM
So maybe if you paid attention you would see that he phrase was this:
"We have the best Gorman and Simeon player coming to Gonzaga, and a Findlay Prep kid, as well. Not your Santangelo's Zags."
Collins would be the Gorman player he is speaking about. If you need further assistance please let me know.

You are irreplaceable.

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 10:23 AM
There was nothing "slighting" Santangelo...you are reading into this way to much vandalzag. Coach simply said this is "not Santagelo's Zags", which most would take to mean that the overall talent of the recruits is much higher. He wasn't attacking Santagelo or his abilities...good lord!

Ah you should be speaking to Jazz he is the one who was all hot and bothered about the persecution of the memory of Matt Santangelo.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:25 AM
Ah you should be speaking to Jazz he is the one who was all hot and bothered about the persecution of the memory of Matt Santangelo.

Thanks for the referral.

ZagNative
02-16-2016, 10:36 AM
It's really too bad that every thread on this board eventually dissolves into petty bickering and sniping. It's sad, because this thread was started after the previous Zach Norvell thread was locked after it was ruined by the same type of nonsense....

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 10:38 AM
Hype is not a measurement. IMO, the turn of the century guards are light years ahead of the current cast while the contemporary bigs are similarly ahead of the bigs of that day.

It's not hype. Those are proven basketball institutions. And for two of them, it's the top player from their respective institutions. The guards of that day were certainly better at running the system, but we are also talking about guards that played a whole career. Matt and Richie weren't nearly as physically gifted and/or possessing the accompanying size that guards like Josh have, now. And Josh is actually having a good freshman season. Plus, I have a hard time with not adjusting based on SOS. At least when it is what it was for guards like Matt during that time. Matt's first season had an SOS of -1.85. I personally feel that matters.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 10:40 AM
It's not hype. Those are proven basketball institutions. And for two of them, it's the top player from their respective institutions. The guards of that day were certainly better at running the system, but we are also talking about guards that played a whole career. Matt and Richie weren't nearly as physically gifted and/or possessing the accompanying size that guards like Josh have, now. And Josh is actually having a good freshman season. Plus, I have a hard time with not adjusting based on SOS. At least when it is what it was for guards like Matt during that time. Matt's first season had an SOS of -1.85. I personally feel that matters.

Well we just disagree and that's fine.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 11:06 AM
Well we just disagree and that's fine.

Totally fair, man. It's a good problem for this program to have.

sittingon50
02-16-2016, 11:50 AM
It's not hype. Those are proven basketball institutions. And for two of them, it's the top player from their respective institutions. The guards of that day were certainly better at running the system, but we are also talking about guards that played a whole career. Matt and Richie weren't nearly as physically gifted and/or possessing the accompanying size that guards like Josh have, now. And Josh is actually having a good freshman season. Plus, I have a hard time with not adjusting based on SOS. At least when it is what it was for guards like Matt during that time. Matt's first season had an SOS of -1.85. I personally feel that matters.

For the record, I didn't think that the original OP was a slight to Matt. But Coach, I will take issue (no, too strong; I will disagree) with your assessment of Matt. Did you see him play? IMO, Matt was more "athletic" & skilled than any guard GU currently has on it's roster.

Edited to add: Not necessarily fair for me to compare Matt's skill level to the other's as he had a full RS yr. to improve before he took the court.

Mr Vulture
02-16-2016, 11:54 AM
I could care less if you agree with his contention, my point is he wasn't slighting or denigrating Santangelo. I can't see how his point isn't valid in that we are getting higher level recruits. I think that is pretty factual.


But I don't agree with his contention. Is that ok?

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 12:05 PM
I could care less if you agree with his contention, my point is he wasn't slighting or denigrating Santangelo. I can't see how his point isn't valid in that we are getting higher level recruits. I think that is pretty factual.

Vul, I could not disagree more. As stated above, Matt and Q and Richie were light years better than this crop of GU guards and were better even than last year's E8 assortment. The recent bigs are clearly better, the turn of the century guards were superior.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 12:13 PM
For the record, I didn't think that the original OP was a slight to Matt. But Coach, I will take issue (no, too strong; I will disagree) with your assessment of Matt. Did you see him play? IMO, Matt was more "athletic" & skilled than any guard GU currently has on it's roster.

I did. And I just don't see it. As I said, Matt was great, but more athletic than Perkins and Emac? No. He may have put things together over a career in a more comprehensive, correlative way than a player like Emac. But no, not more athletic. One thing that that squad did better than most Gonzaga squads was run the offense as a system. But they had to, they didn't have the plethora of talent and individual ability that we are seeing in some of these squads of late.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 12:14 PM
I could care less if you agree with his contention, my point is he wasn't slighting or denigrating Santangelo. I can't see how his point isn't valid in that we are getting higher level recruits. I think that is pretty factual.

I guess facts mean something different, these days.

jazzdelmar
02-16-2016, 12:17 PM
I guess facts mean something different, these days.

Why don't you just respect another persons opinion?

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 12:25 PM
Why don't you just respect another persons opinion?

I do. I respect that you feel that Matt was more athletic and better. I agree that we will just disagree on that one. My apologies. I just don't think everything is subjective. From a recruiting rating perspective, recruiting a Burger Boy is indicative of bringing in higher levels of talent than if they were not. That does not speak to the likelihood of performance once playing, but this is the deepest, most talented recruiting class we have ever had. That's not really debatable. The fact that we are no longer a Cinderella is indicative of how we have performed since '99, and the kind of talent we are bringing in to be regular competitors at a higher level. Back then, beating UCLA and Washington was a big deal. Those were years when they were better than they are now, but it also had to do with the talent we had and the state of the program.

If that Zags team in '99 was the best team ever, then they never were a high major program. They are still just a mid-major who has no business getting high seeds. We've fooled college basketball for a long time.

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 12:28 PM
I'm also programmed to win. Old habits die hard. Even in discussions. As always, I am working on a better approach with posts so that I can be direct, opinionated, make a strong case for why I am right, but still allow for others to have a constructive space free from ad hominem.

sittingon50
02-16-2016, 12:31 PM
I did. And I just don't see it. As I said, Matt was great, but more athletic than Perkins and Emac? No. He may have put things together over a career in a more comprehensive, correlative way than a player like Emac. But no, not more athletic. One thing that that squad did better than most Gonzaga squads was run the offense as a system. But they had to, they didn't have the plethora of talent and individual ability that we are seeing in some of these squads of late.

I guess we'll have to disagree, Coach.

The 1st time I saw Matt in action was his RS Freshman yr. 1st exhibition of the season, vs an alumni team. Kyle Dixon had graduated the yr. before as a 1st team WCC guard. Matt was bringing the ball up court & Kyle picked him clean about half court & went in for the layup. Problem was, Matt recovered & blocked him from behind & above. Jaw dropper. Matt's hops easily compared to EMac & Silas & his ball handling was always better. That being said, I like all the guys we have now.

MDABE80
02-16-2016, 12:37 PM
Abe would like to know what Coach Crazy coaches. Is it just a name? What do you do? Are you a coach? Whereabouts? Unusually stuck on promoting Josh..you're a relative? Did you coach him? Matt Santangelo (outside of John Stocks) is about the best PG we've seen in a Zag jersey.....He killed it in his NBA athletic performance. ie vertical well past 40 in., quick, smart, made his shots CONSISTENTLY.......got his team to an E8 as a real PG and a pair of Swt 16's. He managed his players and made the team work. .and work well. Nothing fancy.....no wild passes .just straight ahead performance.
I don't know about what most of us think, but I think Matt was about the best we've had in any era.

Basketball is played the same way now as it was 15 yrs ago. (get the ball in the hole and play defense) The principles are the same. Athletes seem to be bigger, stronger and faster but not any more effective.. This is no Matt Santangelo era Zags? I wish they were. We're a bit downhill this season comparatively. As you are apt to do, telling us Matt having an SOS of -1.85 really means nothing..not when you just look at Matt's teams. We have a divergence of opinion. I like what I can see. You throw out data points that somewhat are irrelevant. When I saw -1.85 I urped.

But Coach, what do you do? Coach of? What's your expertise? Do tell... I'm just a heart doc who owns buildings and builds housing for single moms and the disabled ). I played at GU in the late 60's....baseball....first frosh the NCAA let play varsity.. I've been watching GU basketball for 50 years though. I've worked for the Celtics (treadmills) and the Lakers....(cardiac fitness/echocardiograms, treadmills and all that small stuff). Not exactly major bona fides but enough to understand the game.

You seem so cocksure of everything....so I must ask you directly...what is your present position and background? Should I be deferring to your experience?

vandalzag
02-16-2016, 12:38 PM
I did. And I just don't see it. As I said, Matt was great, but more athletic than Perkins and Emac? No. He may have put things together over a career in a more comprehensive, correlative way than a player like Emac. But no, not more athletic. One thing that that squad did better than most Gonzaga squads was run the offense as a system. But they had to, they didn't have the plethora of talent and individual ability that we are seeing in some of these squads of late.

Matt S was very athletic and a much better player than anybody on the roster currently, the freshman have 3 more years to try and make claim. I do not think Perkins is overly athletic to begin with, Silas and Emac are but not Perkins. I agree with the contention of running the offense. I would love to see more old school flex, but that would be at the expense of KW. I think Josh would be a very good PG in the old style flex. Matt is the much better player as a finished product. As a Freshman he was only marginally better and did not play as difficult a schedule. For a comparison:

Season School Conf G MP FG FGA FG% 2P 2PA 2P% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS SOS#▾
1996-97 Gonzaga WCC 27 126 287 0.439 79 176 0.449 47 111 0.423 57 82 0.695 79 119 25 5 356 -1.85

2015-16 Gonzaga WCC 26 787 86 199 0.432 51 115 0.443 35 84 0.417 44 68 0.647 13 82 95 106 27 10 54 71 251 2.96

cggonzaga
02-16-2016, 12:47 PM
Also agree Matt S was a superb athlete (moreso than Josh). Matt was terrific his freshman and sophomore years but either he peaked at that point or players around him got better because he was not the same player his junior and senior seasons. He was still great and a clear leader but maybe not as agressive as he previously was. The team clearly got better.

To say those players were better I can't yet agree with yet. Again, we know their full careers and we don't know the current crops. However i will agree the current crop and most any future class will be compared to that group of Santangelo, Frahm, Hall, Floyd and Nilson. Not that that crop was more "talented" but rather because they won. They had a desire and fight that I haven't seen since.

ZagaZags
02-16-2016, 12:51 PM
It's really too bad that every thread on this board eventually dissolves into petty bickering and sniping. It's sad, because this thread was started after the previous Zach Norvell thread was locked after it was ruined by the same type of nonsense....

Yep, the pissing contests are getting old.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/63557847_44e36496fb.jpg

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 12:59 PM
Matt S was very athletic and a much better player than anybody on the roster currently, the freshman have 3 more years to try and make claim. I do not think Perkins is overly athletic to begin with, Silas and Emac are but not Perkins. I agree with the contention of running the offense. I would love to see more old school flex, but that would be at the expense of KW. I think Josh would be a very good PG in the old style flex. Matt is the much better player as a finished product. As a Freshman he was only marginally better and did not play as difficult a schedule. For a comparison:

Season School Conf G MP FG FGA FG% 2P 2PA 2P% 3P 3PA 3P% FT FTA FT% ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS SOS#▾
1996-97 Gonzaga WCC 27 126 287 0.439 79 176 0.449 47 111 0.423 57 82 0.695 79 119 25 5 356 -1.85

2015-16 Gonzaga WCC 26 787 86 199 0.432 51 115 0.443 35 84 0.417 44 68 0.647 13 82 95 106 27 10 54 71 251 2.96

Love SR. Seriously, I may start paying for some advanced stats like heat maps from another, so I can get a little more comprehensive. I have a hard time with not giving Josh a little bump in his stats considering how much better of competition he has been facing. It does make a difference. Look at the offensive boost once he got closer to and in WCC play. Obviously, we cannot compare freshman Josh to 4 years of Santangelo.

Based on what I see, and the what the stats are showing, Josh has the chance to be a Top 5 point guard all-time at this program. Then, someday, if I go away from stats and analytics, I'll be the matured individual defending Josh against the half-martian half-human that is shattering the record books with his anti-gravitational skill set.

MDABE80
02-16-2016, 01:05 PM
Well ZZ somebody begins it and it goes on for a awhile. Most of us are the same crew we've had for 10-15 years. Of course there were some scimmages..intense ones too....but not like lately. I agree, It's getting old fast. When every post is the impetus for an argument, it's not so fun. Turning point is coming. This board has been terrific for well past a decade.

Some weeding might be good.

007Zag
02-16-2016, 01:12 PM
ZN is going to be good, and I am excited to watch him play for the Zags.

That is all.

Mr Vulture
02-16-2016, 01:12 PM
I just don't see how he was bashing on Santangelo. Also, I do not believe that Q was light years better than Pangos/Bell. My only point is that we are getting higher rated recruits than we've gotten before. Not saying the players end up being better. In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Vul, I could not disagree more. As stated above, Matt and Q and Richie were light years better than this crop of GU guards and were better even than last year's E8 assortment. The recent bigs are clearly better, the turn of the century guards were superior.

Maxthebigdog
02-16-2016, 01:31 PM
It is the same people who think that what they to say of supreme interest to everyone on this board........ I get so angry when I go to read a post only to find the thread has been hi jacked and generally by the same people. This might be extreme but when threads are hijacked you should be warned and if continued be disqualified from posting. YOU PEOPLE ARE SO RUDE AND RUIN IT FOR THE REST OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DixieZag
02-16-2016, 01:32 PM
It is the same people who think that what they to say of supreme interest to everyone on this board........ I get so angry when I go to read a post only to find the thread has been hi jacked and generally by the same people. This might be extreme but when threads are hijacked you should be warned and if continued be disqualified from posting. YOU PEOPLE ARE SO RUDE AND RUIN IT FOR THE REST OF US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:clap:

Coach Crazy
02-16-2016, 01:34 PM
I just don't see how he was bashing on Santangelo. Also, I do not believe that Q was light years better than Pangos/Bell. My only point is that we are getting higher rated recruits than we've gotten before. Not saying the players end up being better. In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

ZionZag
02-16-2016, 03:25 PM
Well ZZ somebody begins it and it goes on for a awhile. Most of us are the same crew we've had for 10-15 years. Of course there were some scimmages..intense ones too....but not like lately. I agree, It's getting old fast. When every post is the impetus for an argument, it's not so fun. Turning point is coming. This board has been terrific for well past a decade.

Some weeding might be good.

"It's getting old fast".......why do you participate then?

kitzbuel
02-16-2016, 03:32 PM
Well ZZ somebody begins it and it goes on for a awhile. Most of us are the same crew we've had for 10-15 years. Of course there were some scimmages..intense ones too....but not like lately. I agree, It's getting old fast. When every post is the impetus for an argument, it's not so fun. Turning point is coming. This board has been terrific for well past a decade.

Some weeding might be good.

Welcome back from you vacation... Or did you decide on a stay-cation.

DeSmet Penthouse
02-16-2016, 04:47 PM
I posted this back in 2011 here (http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?34798-NBA-Draft-Combine-Database-Guess-which-Zag-tops-the-list).

Here's a link (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&source=All&sort=12)to the NBA Draft Combine's numbers.

The data is pretty good going back to 2000, then gets spotty from there until 1987. Without knowing what a guy like Frank Burgess could do in his prime, I feel confident in saying that Santangelo is most likely the most athletic player in the history of the Zag program, certainly in the modern era. And you can make a case that he is the most athletic player of any school to attend the NBA combine at least since 2000, which is as far back as the data goes.

Santangelo's combine numbers are staggering. It's probably a horse race between him and Nate Robinson to claim the crown of: Best overall athlete at the NBA combine in the modern era. Santangelo was a true athletic freak of nature. No clue how he didn't get drafted.

Sorry for the continued thread de-railment, and I don't want this to re-start a fight, but I thought this was worthy to set the record straight.

ZagNative
02-16-2016, 06:47 PM
Wow. This thread is a joke. Are none of the participants embarrassed by this nonsense? I guess all I can do is develop an appreciation for the carnival of posts that go so completely astray and dissolve into biting and scratching.

Thanks to whichever Mod at least clipped the most offensive stuff from the Zach Norvell thread.

former1dog
02-16-2016, 07:02 PM
I posted this back in 2011 here (http://guboards.spokesmanreview.com/showthread.php?34798-NBA-Draft-Combine-Database-Guess-which-Zag-tops-the-list).

Here's a link (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/?year=All&sort2=DESC&draft=&pos=&source=All&sort=12)to the NBA Draft Combine's numbers.

The data is pretty good going back to 2000, then gets spotty from there until 1987. Without knowing what a guy like Frank Burgess could do in his prime, I feel confident in saying that Santangelo is most likely the most athletic player in the history of the Zag program, certainly in the modern era. And you can make a case that he is the most athletic player of any school to attend the NBA combine at least since 2000, which is as far back as the data goes.

Santangelo's combine numbers are staggering. It's probably a horse race between him and Nate Robinson to claim the crown of: Best overall athlete at the NBA combine in the modern era. Santangelo was a true athletic freak of nature. No clue how he didn't get drafted.

Sorry for the continued thread de-railment, and I don't want this to re-start a fight, but I thought this was worthy to set the record straight.


Thank you. This should end the debate about Santangelo's athleticism vs "fill in the blank". Frahm was also extremely athletic, as was Calvary. They would all do very well against the current crop. It's a puzzle why Frahm, probably the third or fourth best player on that team was the only player to make the NBA.

Any honest evaluation understands that those players were supremely talented and very gifted athletes that also bought into a great basketball system. Why did they do so well? All of the above. It's inaccurate at best to make the statement that they were sub par athletically or talent wise and had success because of the execution of great team ball.

RenoZag
02-16-2016, 08:32 PM
It's getting old fast. When every post is the impetus for an argument, it's not so fun. Turning point is coming. This board has been terrific for well past a decade.

Some weeding might be good.

Indeed.