Wow!

[commonsense]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

I agree, six boards a game for Larson is unrealistic, but 8 and 4 is not.
How much more than 10 and 8 do you see from Polk. I don't see much more than 10 because of offensive limitations. He will not get points on the break, or make jump shots of any kind. He can't capitalize at the foul line. I also don't see a very polished post game. (no left hand, so-so footwork, and so-so touch) I understand he is a raw sophmore, but I also dont see his minutes ever getting above 25 due to conditioning and foul problems.

ps.. I really do want to know what you think his potential is.

[Globetrotter]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

I agree, six boards a game for Larson is unrealistic, but 8 and 4 is not.
How much more than 10 and 8 do you see from Polk. I don't see much more than 10 because of offensive limitations. He will not get points on the break, or make jump shots of any kind. He can't capitalize at the foul line. I also don't see a very polished post game. (no left hand, so-so footwork, and so-so touch) I understand he is a raw sophmore, but I also dont see his minutes ever getting above 25 due to conditioning and foul problems.

ps.. I really do want to know what you think his potential is.

Can I tell you what i think? 17 and 11 and 3. Points rebounds and blocks. If we had more dangerous shooters it would actually help him more because he would get better spacing on rebounds (This is a logic thing, I am not sure if this is what is actually happening). Blocks is something that he would get just by adding some more conditioning and finesse. His points and bounds would skyrocket with his minutes. A guy that size does not need an offensive game to be successful he can rely on put backs, dunks and foul shots.

[commonsense]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.

No NBA team would draft him. For his position in the NBA he is not even tall. He is a true Center. He has zero chance guarding a PF in the NBA. So even as a defensive specialist clogging lanes he would be overmatched. He does not get up and down the court fast enough to come even close to competing in the NBA. Offensively, it is not even worth discussing. Otis can help the Falcons.

[Globetrotter]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.

No NBA team would draft him. For his position in the NBA he is not even tall. He is a true Center. He has zero chance guarding a PF in the NBA. So even as a defensive specialist clogging lanes he would be overmatched. He does not get up and down the court fast enough to come even close to competing in the NBA. Offensively, it is not even worth discussing. Otis can help the Falcons.

Good to know. Thanks for the discussion. Jason Maxiell was a first rounder. So was Renaldo Balkman. Otis my man shares a similar body type to Zach Randolph, Brand, Ben Wallace and Sean May. Both are really good players. No one is saying Otis is going to be a great NBA player. And being drafted doesnt mean you will ever even play in the NBA. I am just saying if he can get his fouling down, and his footwork and stamina up I think a team could see potential.

[commonsense]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.

No NBA team would draft him. For his position in the NBA he is not even tall. He is a true Center. He has zero chance guarding a PF in the NBA. So even as a defensive specialist clogging lanes he would be overmatched. He does not get up and down the court fast enough to come even close to competing in the NBA. Offensively, it is not even worth discussing. Otis can help the Falcons.

Good to know. Thanks for the discussion. Jason Maxiell was a first rounder. So was Renaldo Balkman. Otis my man shares a similar body type to Zach Randolph, Brand, Ben Wallace and Sean May. Both are really good players. No one is saying Otis is going to be a great NBA player. And being drafted doesnt mean you will ever even play in the NBA. I am just saying if he can get his fouling down, and his footwork and stamina up I think a team could see potential.

Maxiell has a 40" plus vertical, is fast and explosive

Balkman, a small forward is listed at 6'8" and 208 lbs. Polk is listed at 6'9" 280 lbs.

Ben Wallace does not have a similar body to Otis, he just doesn't.

Randolf and Brand have been 20 and 10 skill guys in franchise roles. These guys are big, but can move and play from 20 ft out and in. Sean May is a level below Randolf and Brand, but the same argument applies. These three guys were not projects either. All were McDonalds All Americans, all played in the final 4 as underclassmen.

Those were bad examples of Otis's potential or even body type which is more of what I think you were trying to say. You are severely under estimating the NBA.

[hammb]

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

I agree, six boards a game for Larson is unrealistic, but 8 and 4 is not.
How much more than 10 and 8 do you see from Polk. I don't see much more than 10 because of offensive limitations. He will not get points on the break, or make jump shots of any kind. He can't capitalize at the foul line. I also don't see a very polished post game. (no left hand, so-so footwork, and so-so touch) I understand he is a raw sophmore, but I also dont see his minutes ever getting above 25 due to conditioning and foul problems.

ps.. I really do want to know what you think his potential is.

While I don't think Otis is NBA material, I do think he has closer to 15 & 10 potential upside. To me that would be a dominant center in the MAC. I agree with what you said, as to the NBA. He's a true center, and at 6'9 he'd be undersized for that position at that level. No way he has the quickness to guard the PF spot in the NBA...not even close.

That said, I do think he's pretty darn quick for his size, and I continue to look at what he says about his weight. He wants to drop 30 pounds. If he wants to work towards that goal, I see no reason why he cannot do it. Now, that's asking quite a bit, but it's obvious that he knows what he needs to do. Even at 260 I think he's potentially the best center in the MAC.

Even at his current weight, I think his minutes are lessened more due to foul trouble than stamina issues. You could definitely argue he fouls more when he wears down, and I do think you might have a point, still it's the fouls that are the biggest problem. We just saw a 4-5 game stretch where he stayed out of foul trouble and was playing 23-24 minutes a night. In that stretch he was showing how he can, RIGHT NOW, give you about 7 & 7.

If he gets smarter on the fouling issue, cuts a little weight, and gets better offensively, I don't think it's that far fetched to see him add 8 points & 3 boards a night to those totals. Even if he doesn't develop any post moves or touch around the rim, I still don't think 10 & 10 is beyond the realm of possibility.

As to your question I'd say his ceiling is around 15 & 10. Few players reach their ceiling, so I'd say 12 & 9 might be a more fair prediction/expectation, but I definitely think he has potential to be better than that. Honestly I might even be low on his ceiling if he were to have a major lightbulb go on and cut 30 pounds. It'd surprise me to see him ever score more than 15 a game, but with a body like his you just don't know. If the work ethic is there, you never know when it might just click for him. I will say that I agree with you about last season completely. He was our best center last year as a freshman and he didn't get the minutes he should have to help his development. It's a real shame, but what do you expect. We brought back a lame duck coach who was trying to do everything he could to save his own ass.

I'm just glad to be talking some hoops on here again

[60yearsofsicsic]

I guess since I have live in NC and can only listen to the Radio feeds it is really hard for me to have an clear read on what kind of player JJ is going to be in the MAC. Is he a natural point guard will he be another bradon pardon or is he more of a shooting guard and dare I say similar to john floyd ( with more talent)?? love to hear what you all think...

[h2oville rocket]

At least two posters, including Grant, have compared Otis P's body to that of Ben Wallace and I agree. Polk just covers it up with another body that is pretty soft to protect the Wallace one underneath.

[ZiggyZoomba]

At least two posters, including Grant, have compared Otis P's body to that of Ben Wallace and I agree. Polk just covers it up with another body that is pretty soft to protect the Wallace one underneath.

So, what's your point? You think he needs to climb more walls? Mountains? Cliff-faces?? Is that what you're saying??

[h2oville rocket]

At least two posters, including Grant, have compared Otis P's body to that of Ben Wallace and I agree. Polk just covers it up with another body that is pretty soft to protect the Wallace one underneath.

So, what's your point? You think he needs to climb more walls? Mountains? Cliff-faces?? Is that what you're saying??

He's fine- its the people who think he looks like Wallace that I'm worried about. And after tonight I have given up climbing- I'm afraid I'll be 500 feet up, hanging from some sketchy pro when I think of UT's basketball team and I'll see if I can fly...

[Globetrotter]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.

No NBA team would draft him. For his position in the NBA he is not even tall. He is a true Center. He has zero chance guarding a PF in the NBA. So even as a defensive specialist clogging lanes he would be overmatched. He does not get up and down the court fast enough to come even close to competing in the NBA. Offensively, it is not even worth discussing. Otis can help the Falcons.

Good to know. Thanks for the discussion. Jason Maxiell was a first rounder. So was Renaldo Balkman. Otis my man shares a similar body type to Zach Randolph, Brand, Ben Wallace and Sean May. Both are really good players. No one is saying Otis is going to be a great NBA player. And being drafted doesnt mean you will ever even play in the NBA. I am just saying if he can get his fouling down, and his footwork and stamina up I think a team could see potential.

Maxiell has a 40" plus vertical, is fast and explosive

Balkman, a small forward is listed at 6'8" and 208 lbs. Polk is listed at 6'9" 280 lbs.

Ben Wallace does not have a similar body to Otis, he just doesn't.

Randolf and Brand have been 20 and 10 skill guys in franchise roles. These guys are big, but can move and play from 20 ft out and in. Sean May is a level below Randolf and Brand, but the same argument applies. These three guys were not projects either. All were McDonalds All Americans, all played in the final 4 as underclassmen.

Those were bad examples of Otis's potential or even body type which is more of what I think you were trying to say. You are severely under estimating the NBA.

How are those bad examples of his body type? They absolutely are not. All McDonalds All Americans and now NBA stars. All lottery picks. All I am saying is that if he develops some consistency I could see him drafted. How about Lonny Baxter?

[Globetrotter]

At least two posters, including Grant, have compared Otis P's body to that of Ben Wallace and I agree. Polk just covers it up with another body that is pretty soft to protect the Wallace one underneath.

So, what's your point? You think he needs to climb more walls? Mountains? Cliff-faces?? Is that what you're saying??

He's fine- its the people who think he looks like Wallace that I'm worried about. And after tonight I have given up climbing- I'm afraid I'll be 500 feet up, hanging from some sketchy pro when I think of UT's basketball team and I'll see if I can fly...

Undersied center with limited offense skills, there is your comparison.

[commonsense]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.

No NBA team would draft him. For his position in the NBA he is not even tall. He is a true Center. He has zero chance guarding a PF in the NBA. So even as a defensive specialist clogging lanes he would be overmatched. He does not get up and down the court fast enough to come even close to competing in the NBA. Offensively, it is not even worth discussing. Otis can help the Falcons.

Good to know. Thanks for the discussion. Jason Maxiell was a first rounder. So was Renaldo Balkman. Otis my man shares a similar body type to Zach Randolph, Brand, Ben Wallace and Sean May. Both are really good players. No one is saying Otis is going to be a great NBA player. And being drafted doesnt mean you will ever even play in the NBA. I am just saying if he can get his fouling down, and his footwork and stamina up I think a team could see potential.

Maxiell has a 40" plus vertical, is fast and explosive

Balkman, a small forward is listed at 6'8" and 208 lbs. Polk is listed at 6'9" 280 lbs.

Ben Wallace does not have a similar body to Otis, he just doesn't.

Randolf and Brand have been 20 and 10 skill guys in franchise roles. These guys are big, but can move and play from 20 ft out and in. Sean May is a level below Randolf and Brand, but the same argument applies. These three guys were not projects either. All were McDonalds All Americans, all played in the final 4 as underclassmen.

Those were bad examples of Otis's potential or even body type which is more of what I think you were trying to say. You are severely under estimating the NBA.

How are those bad examples of his body type? They absolutely are not. All McDonalds All Americans and now NBA stars. All lottery picks. All I am saying is that if he develops some consistency I could see him drafted. How about Lonny Baxter?

These are bad examples of his body type because you are looking at hight and weight only. With this type of reasoning you could say Joe Jac has the body type of Steve Nash or Clements has the body type of Dwayne Wade, and if both improve enough they could be drafted. You are completely leaving out the fact that included in the (Brand, Randolf, May, Baxter) body type is how that body moves and explodes. These players having been running fast, jumping very high off both legs with coordination and agility since they were 14-15 years old. They were born with this ability. I will also point out that Otis is knock kneed. I am not trying to criticize him, but if were talking about the NBA this must be mentioned. It does not benefit NBA athleticism. It does not line up with the above mentioned body type.

[Globetrotter]

Big Baby

[h2oville rocket]

Big Baby

Hey, hey! No name calling.