Getting players with Height

[snydrosooner]

I have noticed during the talk of the mid to low major teams, alot of them have 2-3 6'10" players. Obvioulsy there are reasons these players went to smaller schools ( ability out of high school, grades). But this does beg the question. Do you take a chance on height for height sake? Our team this year tallest guy is 6-8, but seem to be athletic. Do you take a chance on a not as athletic 6-10 guy and hope they can play in 2 or 3 years or go with the 6-8 guy that is ready to play now?

 

[SoonerTraveler]

I like OU's current focus on athletic players with a high potential to improve their skills. See the incoming 2014 recruiting class.

I would rather have an athletic 6-9 player over a "stiff" 6-11 player.

 

[CoachTalk]

Give me the 6'8 that can play. Any day

 

[WTSooner]

How many teams in the Big 12 start a kid over 6'9?

Without looking, my guess would be very few.

 

[AdaSooner]

Schools like OU don't get a chance to sign a 6' 10" or better player who is worth his salt too often. There have been some. Stacey King comes immediately to mind. We have also had our share of players who didn't pan out over the years. The really good ones who have already proven themselves in high school or prep school usually end up at one of the elite programs.

Sometimes you get lucky and bring in a late bloomer who develops later in his career. That seems to be the case with 6' 10" center, Jamuni McNeace, who will be at OU this fall. Judging by everything I have seen and heard of this kid, he has a huge upside and he is developing faster than expected. Jamuni is not just tall, he has unusual length with his 84" wing span. Khadeem Lattin, another big who will be at OU in a few months, is listed at 6' 9" by most of the recruiting sites I've visited. I think he's got a chance to be a great player in time.

Bottom line: Spangler and Bennett will have to look up at their young teammates next year.

 

[NickZepp]

There just aren't that many great 6-10+ guys that are as athletic in this period. Look at the NBA and you don't see a ton of guys that tall at PF/Center right now. You may have more guys right at 6-9 or 6-10 but not as many as there were say in the 80s or 90s.

 

[DenverSooner]

How many teams in the Big 12 start a kid over 6'9?

Without looking, my guess would be very few.

Just guessing - Texas, KU, Baylor, and Tech. OSU, OU, ISU and TCU I would say/guess definitely don't. I am not sure about KSU and WVU but would guess they don't. I am positive KU, Baylor and Tech all do.

 

[garyeb2]

Give me the 6'8 that can play. Any day

I wish we had a 6' 8" kid.

 

[SoonerTraveler]

I wish we had a 6' 8" kid.

True that.

 

[BoulderSooner]

I wish we had a 6' 8" kid.

we do

 

[cowboysooner]

I've heard Billy Tubbs say that if a kid is really 6'9, then that is plenty tall enough to give you what you need for D1 college play. I would agree with that statement.

This statement notwithstanding, Billy would play better shorter players in the post, William davis, david Johnson etc, than taller and less talented tall players. So, he didn't always play at least one tall kid just for height.

Coaches vary on this issue. I have always sort of been in the Eddie Sutton camp. You simply have to have at least one big, and he had his bigs compete only among themselves for the post position. He didn't force big Country Reaves to compete for center with a more talented 6'6 guy for center. Billy would have played the shorter more talented player. I viewed this as one of the few weaknesses of Billy as a coach.

Tall kids are the last to develop -- period. Always have been and always will be, and for lots of reasons. If you don't play them, they never develop. I would rather have billy as coach than Eddie, for many reasons, but I think Eddie's approach to take his best big and play him, ultimately developing at least one big, was the best long term approach. Created a higher ceiling in my view for the team. Both thoughts on this issue are reasonable.

All this being said, all things being equal, tall beats short in basketball.

 

[WTSooner]

I think we are going to be more than pleased with Lattin and McNease, and their size (height/wing span). And I'm sure LK isn't done recruiting guys like that either.

 

[garyeb2]

we do

No. We don't.

 

[BoulderSooner]

No. We don't.

your wrong ..

 

[NickZepp]

Bennett plays taller with his long arms. And to some extent so does Spangler. But we don't have a true 6-8 guy right now.

 

[WTSooner]

Spangler does not play big. Probably 6'7 at best, with average or less than average wing span.

I bet Lattin and McNease are both considerably "longer" than Spanger, and Buford may actually be pretty equal to Spangler. We are definitely getting longer next year, which is a good thing.

 

[NickZepp]

Spangler does not play big. Probably 6'7 at best, with average or less than average wing span.

I bet Lattin and McNease are both considerably "longer" than Spanger, and Buford may actually be pretty equal to Spangler. We are definitely getting longer next year, which is a good thing.

He doesn't necessarily play taller but he does do a good job rebounding using his athletic ability so that's really what I meant. His offense the last month or so of the season just wasn't good enough.

 

[WTSooner]

He doesn't necessarily play taller but he does do a good job rebounding using his athletic ability so that's really what I meant. His offense the last month or so of the season just wasn't good enough.

True. But length with add so much more. Getting to rebounds Spangler just couldn't reach. Altering shots. Blocking shots. Getting in passing lanes. Length in basketball can make a world of difference.

 

[MI Sooner]

I've heard Billy Tubbs say that if a kid is really 6'9, then that is plenty tall enough to give you what you need for D1 college play. I would agree with that statement.

This statement notwithstanding, Billy would play better shorter players in the post, William davis, david Johnson etc, than taller and less talented tall players. So, he didn't always play at least one tall kid just for height.

Coaches vary on this issue. I have always sort of been in the Eddie Sutton camp. You simply have to have at least one big, and he had his bigs compete only among themselves for the post position. He didn't force big Country Reaves to compete for center with a more talented 6'6 guy for center. Billy would have played the shorter more talented player. I viewed this as one of the few weaknesses of Billy as a coach.

Tall kids are the last to develop -- period. Always have been and always will be, and for lots of reasons. If you don't play them, they never develop. I would rather have billy as coach than Eddie, for many reasons, but I think Eddie's approach to take his best big and play him, ultimately developing at least one big, was the best long term approach. Created a higher ceiling in my view for the team. Both thoughts on this issue are reasonable.

All this being said, all things being equal, tall beats short in basketball.

I wouldn't think that an 84" wingspan is unusual for a guy who is 6'10".

 

[thebigabd]

I would like to take a chance on some 6'11'' + guys every year or two. You never know how those guys are going to develop. Usually in college, because the other teams post players are 6'7'', it can give you a big advantage.

Just go find some juco 7'0'' footer, redshirt him if you need to, see what happens. A juco big guy will usually be more developed than the high school one. You have 12-13 scholarships. I would be signing a 7 footer every year.

If this years OU team had a legit shot blocker, they would be a top 5 team nationally. But, OU is pretty standard issue with 6'7'' post players, no real shot blockers, etc.