Maybe you didn't notice the "no-step" part of that sentence. Meaning he has a 41 inch vertical flat footed. He has a 48 inch vertical if he can take a step and jump.
Just to put in perspective, his no-step vertical is higher than Roy's running vertical (40.5) - and Roy is not exactly lacking in the athletic department...
I think you just described Bayless, a guy who has already shown he can play at an NBA level (though not as a starter yet.)
It seems that everything I red about Williams is good. Which is fantastic, but it makes me wonder why he slid as far as he did. He's an undersized two without a strong perimeter shooter, but he still seems to have a ton of positives. Ed O.
My guess is they just wanted to bring in a guy who would push the guys in front of him and not bitch about playing time.
Actually, in all seriousness, my same scout friend who thinks Nate's offense is easy to prepare for thinks Williams is a stud. He says he has the skill set to be amazing next to Roy. He isn't sure how he will fit into our offense though. He says Williams is more effective in the open court. So take that for what you think it's worth.
I'd love for him to make Bayless expandable. He's bigger and more athletic, and supposedly a better defender. Miller showed last year though that it is good to have playmaking next to Roy, so we'll see how he's at that, and the outside shooting, of course.
Athletic players with skills have the ability to make plays happen. Sometimes you don't need an offensive set for them to do something amazining. The problem is in the past, we have got Athletic guys who really don't know how to play ball, and needed anywhere from 3 to 5 years to become even average. I get the feeling with Williams (and reading his story about how he transferred) that he definitely already knew how to play ball. He played for coach K for a year. You can't play for coach K and not absorb a lot of knowledge, because if you are wasting his time, he will kick you to the curb. The one thing that jumped out at me about Williams was this stat taken from DraftExpress: Williams scored on higher rate on non-fast break posessions than any other player in last years draft, scoring at 45.4%. (I am not completely clear on what that means, as the stat sounds abiguous.) But it sounds positive. He also gets fouled on 11% of his posessions. Problems he poses for opposition: Lightning fast first step. Explosive. Knows how to use screens.
How so? Jack had at least a weak jumper. Williams has nothing right now. Jack was a below average defender. Williams is touted for that. Jack wasn't much of a playmaker. They don't seem all that similar to me.
Since when does a guy who shoots 37% from three on 5 attempts a game have a "weak jumper"? I'm pretty sure he was joking about the "steroids" comment (See T-Rex) But, Williams' final year of college compared to Jack's: 18 pts; 15.5 pts 4 asst; 4.5 asst 53% FG; 48%FG 37% 3PT; 36% 3PT Playmaking similar, 3pt shot similar, Williams is likely a better defender, but Jack wasn't bad.
Maybe my funny bone wasn't working today? Either that, or those who commented on this missed it. Williams has been compared by many to Bayless. Bayless was compared to Jarrett Jack on steroids by KP.
Okay, thanks. I've read a couple of places of people, including Blazer staff, wondering whether the 41 and 48 are misprints. Who in history has been 48 or higher? David Thompson, Darrell Griffith, Guillermo Diaz were all lower. The highest in history on this list is 39.5 no-step and 45.5 running (Kenny Gregory, 2001). Elliott Williams isn't on this list. http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre...l&sort2=DESC&draft=0&pos=0&source=All&sort=12
