Am I the only one who is driven crazy by some of these ratings? I mean, I don't really mind the potential part, because that's all opinion, but when I see someone like Ed Davis get a 9/10 for size when he's 6,9, but Patrick Patterson is 6,8 and he gets a 6/10 for his size? Anybody feel what I'm saying?
isn't...very....haha. I mean, their mocks are good, but sometimes they're Player Profiles are horrible.
Yeah I see what you mean and I agree
No, size has nothing to do with post moves. Davis has no potential as a SF either. Also, Patterson has a way better build than Davis, so that's even more to my point.
wait has anyone watched patterson?..he has some pretty good moves and is aggressive. he doesnt have to move to the small foward he wil be fine as a pf. he's wayyyy better then davis right now. of course davis has potenial because any big guy that is athletic will be said to have more potenial then aother big man who isnt as athleic
Patterson is an absolute beast. I think if he comes out next year he will be a lottery pick.
- Executes offensively
- Likes to mix it up inside
- Pick and roll play
- Setting screens
- Ability to establish position in post
- Back to basket scoring
- Excellent hands
- Excellent Touch
- Jump-hook shot
- Shot-blocking skills
- Physical Toughness
- Ability to finish around basket
- Ability to run the floor
- Excellent wingspan
- NBA body
- Free throw shooting
- Mid-range Jumper
thats what draft express said about him...on top of averaging 17 and 9.3 rebounds. everything with davis is based on what he might do
True, but you could make a case that in some games Ed Davis was a far better player than Hansbrough....Sometimes I was like "wow, this guy is going to be a stud". I think Ed has proven a lot more than people give him credit for...Still, Patrick is a way more proven player.
in what game ( key word being game not a couple plays) was ed better then hansbrough?