Rothstein: Brandon declares

[Goshzagit]

Interesting factoid:

Brandon Clarke & Zach Norvell clocked in at the SAME weight, 207 lbs.

Clarke body fat was 4.9%, & 6-8.25 tall.

Norvell body fat was 7.5%, & 6-5.5 tall.

Looks like we list our athletes with accurate heights as well.

Clarke tested out with the shortest wingspan & standing reach ratio of entire combine, yet tested #1 or #2 in every athletic test they threw at him.

Norvell tested out dead last or at the bottom in every athletic test, such as standing vert, max vert, lane agility or shuttle, & 3/4 court sprint.

We could have guessed each of their athletic testing results, but who coulda guessed they weighed the same? Never in a million yrs...

[jazzdelmar]

How do those numbers impact Norvell’s prospects?

[MileHigh]

How do those numbers impact Norvell’s prospects?

Norvell's lack of explosiveness is no secret and is something that all the GM's know about going into the combine. It is likely the main reason he is projected as a 2nd round guy and not a mid to late first round guy. His forte in the NBA will be as a shooter, which is one niche where your vert doesn't matter much

My guess is that the combine just confirmed what everyone already knew, so it wont cause him to move up or down on any of the teams respective draft boards

[Bogozags]

Outstanding interview! Thanks for posting ZN

+1

[Markburn1]

Jordan Bell compares favorably to Clarke. Both great energy. Both extremely athletic. Both shot blockers. Both limited offensively but with potential. I really enjoy watching both play.

As an aside, every coach has a blind spot. Kerr is fabulous, but Bell should get more minutes.

[MileHigh]

Jordan Bell compares favorably to Clarke. Both great energy. Both extremely athletic. Both shot blockers. Both limited offensively but with potential. I really enjoy watching both play.

As an aside, every coach has a blind spot. Kerr is fabulous, but Bell should get more minutes.

The Bell comparison is a really good one, but it kind of underscores the dilemma with selecting Clarke high in the draft. His absolute upside (IMO) is as a solid starter on a team with 2 or 3 better scoring options where he he mainly brings defense and garbage buckets/lobs, in other words, a role player. I cant see him ever being an NBA All-Star or a guy that is one of your top scorers. Teams dont use lottery picks for projected role players. The good thing is that I think he is a "cant miss"in terms of playing many years as a contributor. He is athletic and has a good motor. Players with his profile tend to get drafted in the back half of the first round (15-30)

[Markburn1]

The Bell comparison is a really good one, but it kind of underscores the dilemma with selecting Clarke high in the draft. His absolute upside (IMO) is as a solid starter on a team with 2 or 3 better scoring options where he he mainly brings defense and garbage buckets/lobs, in other words, a role player. I cant see him ever being an NBA All-Star or a guy that is one of your top scorers. Teams dont use lottery picks for projected role players. The good thing is that I think he is a "cant miss"in terms of playing many years as a contributor. He is athletic and has a good motor. Players with his profile tend to get drafted in the back half of the first round (15-30)

Agreed. I do think the landscape is changing quickly though. Bell can switch defensively 1-5 and I think Brandon will be able to do the same. Bell has good passing instincts and fits well into what Golden State calls it's death lineup. We've seen Brandon make some very good decisions passing the ball as well. I would consider starting Bell instead of Bogut and play without worrying so much about getting beaten on the pick and roll. This might sound crazy, but in this series even if Cousins were available I would give Bell more minutes. I believe Clarke has the same potential. Both may be undervalued.

[maynard g krebs]

I am not sure how you can say wing span is "overrated" since it is really just just another physical factor that folks use to evaluate (along with height and weight). Obviously in a a sport where reaching over people and around people to grab and deflect the ball is important, long arms are better than short arms, and that everyone agrees upon. At every level of basketball coaches covet "long" players (i.e. long arms) but beyond that I don't think anyone has ever considered arm length more important than ones ability to play the game.

I don't follow the NBA closely, or much at all really, but I see great college players knocked into the second round almost entirely because of relatively short arms. Dillon Brooks of Oregon's final 4 team a couple years ago is one example that comes to mind. From Brooks' soph year, my Duck fan brother insisted pac 12 POY Brooks should be a mid-first rounder. I told him all the eval sites had him as a 2nd rounder due to his short arms, and he said "those people are crazy" and that they don't understand basketball. Brooks was arguably somewhere around the 10th best rookie his first season after getting drafted in the 40's; has had a lot of injuries since.

I'm not saying arm length isn't a factor, just that it is one factor of many, and that it has become overemphasized by scouts, lowering the stock of guys who can play the game.

ETA of course, I don't think this will apply to Clarke because of his elite shot blocking ability and speed/quickness and leaping.

[maynard g krebs]

BC is listed as a SF in the NBA. Defensively, I don't see him having a problem. I think he has the foot speed and quickness to guard the 3 position. He showed some of it on ball screen defensive switching at GU. Offensively, is where I think teams might pause. He is really limited to driving and finishing at the rim. In time, I believe he will develop his jump shot and be a fine player. But the question was... does an NBA team risk a mid-first round pick on a player that currently hasn't shown he can play the 3 in games. Now I understand today's NBA of "positionless" basketball that may not be as big of a factor... and it only takes ONE team to take a chance. But my entire point was that his wingspan and standing height were quite a bit shorter than people were expecting. That data might have him dropping from lottery to the back of round 1 or even into round 2.

He's a unique player without a comparable out there. He played exclusively the 4/5 in college and made up for his undersize with quickness/timing. He was brilliant. But will a team risk a high to mid 1st rd pick on that kind of player? I think it was a tough ask BEFORE his measurements came in. Despite the passion this board shows towards BC... wingspan and standing reach matter. In just a few weeks we will see how much it matters. IMO, there isn't any chance BC goes to a lottery team. I think he falls to late first... early second rd. Not because of talent. Not because he's a bad player. Not because of off the court issues... simply because 1) he hasn't played the SF position hasn't shown he can shoot/dribble like a SF.. and 2) he would have one of the shortest standing reaches/wingspans for any player at his height and position in the NBA. Given those two factors, it would be hard for a team to take BC high in the draft.

That doesn't mean he won't be a beast and dominate the NBA. Draymond Green was selected in the second round.

Dennis Rodman and Barkley both played the 4 in the NBA. Both were not as big as BC. Maybe it's different now; I don't watch the NBA enough to know.

[maynard g krebs]

My Duck fan brother thinks Clarke is a much better offensive player than Bell was at the same stage, and if he had a bias, it would be the other way.

[GonzaGAW]

Well, his span doesn't preclude him being a star because he makes up for it in his leaping an being so quick. I look forward to seeing him on V come November. We lost a highly skilled, nice guy who would bin the running for POY if he stayed for his Sr year.
he's gong o be highlight reel in the NBA. And he's still improving. We were so lucky to have him fr one year. He'll represent GU very well. I do hope other bigs notice how much he improved in his RS year........

- you can be sure, positive, that the coaching staff points out to every potential recruit and transfer, the success stories of Clarke, olynyk and rui and others. this is clearly a strong selling point to the program.

[webspinnre]

My Duck fan brother thinks Clarke is a much better offensive player than Bell was at the same stage, and if he had a bias, it would be the other way.

Agreed, and frankly, it isn't particularly close.

[JPtheBeasta]

I never saw Bell’s offensive efficiency numbers, but Clarke’s were fantastic (if not historic). Clarke would have gotten a ton of media last year, in my opinion, if Zion wasn’t around.

[stretch]

At this point, his best bet might be to come back to GU for a year to work on that wingspan.

[ZagNative]

TOO FUNNY, STRETCH!