Maomao, it's the 21st century. Don't look at height. Look at reach and wingspan.
You guys want a starting backcourt of 2 6'3" guys? Seriously?? Man...:thumbdown
Yeah, which is why you take Lamb not Beal...
I've love how players always shrink or grow to bolster an argument :chuckles:
Ask Joe Dumars how he feels about that.
Are you implying that the 1989 pistons should be a model to win a championship in 2015?? Are you effin serious??
Are you implying that the 1989 pistons should be a model to win a championship in 2015?? Are you effin serious??
So you're implying that history has no bearing on what can be successful? Are you effin serious???
I'm not the first guy to mention he's really 6'3", so don't front. Ryan Blake, NBA scout guy said Beal was 6'3" in a recent interview...
I'm *saying* that the NBA of '89 has little bearing on the NBA of today, yes. I'm also saying that using Joe Dumars as a reason to take Beal is a really shitty argument. Clear?
.You were clearly saying nothing about Dumars, and his point had nothing to do with Dumars -- only that small back courts have been successful in the past. So don't change the conversation to suit your points.
But Kyrie is 2 inches taller than Thomas, and Beal may be at least 1 inch taller than Dumars. So your point is likely worthless either way.
Usually when talking about height we're referring to a player's height in shoes. Beal was measured at 6'4.5" in shoes over a year ago. We'll know more exactly in a few days, but Beal isn't that undersized. Considering his strong frame and playstyle, it shouldn't be a problem.