Rumored #11 Pick O' The Day: Gerald Henderson
The Bulls have held trade talks with several teams about packaging picks Nos. 16 and 26 into one higher selection, with two league sources insisting the target is Duke shooting guard Gerald Henderson.
I haven't dug that deep into Henderson's resume, but he seems like a raw / high-upside player. His lack of passing and shooting ability make me think other options at #11 or #16 can contribute more right away, but this quote from draftexpress gives me hope:
Fortunately, Henderson is an athlete of the highest caliber, and that really shines through in some areas –namely his ability to finish around the basket. He ranked fourth in that category behind Jermaine Taylor (very limited sample size), Wayne Ellington and James Harden, and first in finishing off cuts, at a tremendous 77%. Surprisingly enough, though, Henderson ranks third to last amongst 19 shooting guards in terms of the amount of possessions he received in transition, which tells us quite a bit about Duke's half-court oriented approach.
Obviously he's talented, maybe the idea is the switch from Coach K to VDN will make the lightbulb go on.
4 months ago
YaoPau
50 comments
2 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Dear God!!!
Am I the only one who still believes in the Duke curse???
"Rest satisified with doing well and leave others to talk of you as they please"
by Bigred15 on Jun 23, 2009 7:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
VDN is amazing
He can do wonders with this kid.
"I guess I can’t do anything if you’re just irrational, but to point it out and move on."
- fundamentallysound
by J Theory on Jun 23, 2009 8:50 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's Fitting
When I think of Duke, I think of raw, unbridled athleticism.
by lilzaky on Jun 23, 2009 8:55 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Henderson is not your typical Dukie
I’m a huge UNC fan, and don’t like Duke very much (to put it nicely).
But you know how there’s that opponent on the team you dislike most, but appreciate the brilliance he plays with (like an Adrian Peterson, Barry Sanders, Lebron, etc.)? Well, Gerald Henderson is one of those types of guys.
One of the best compliments I can give the guy is that he could play in any system, because he knows how to be coached (strike against the Bulls), has a tremendous basketball IQ, and he does what he’s asked. If he was leading a break and his team didn’t have numbers, he’d wait for the team to set up the offense. He rarely ever took shots outside of the flow of the offense, unless the clock was winding down.
He’s a tenacious defender and great athlete. He’s improved his shooting, ball-handling, and defense each year, and appears to have much more room to grow. For most of the single digit games he’s produced, the issue has been foul trouble, as opposed to a player taking him out of his game. And playing in Duke’s offense he wasn’t going to have many opportunities to score in the 30s, anyway.
So, get over the Duke thing. I forced myself to do so. And I would easily draft Henderson over any UNC player available in this draft.
I don’t think Hansbrough can bring that energy over an 82 game season. I think Ellington has peaked as a player and will only become more effective if he commits strongly to a strength program. I think Danny Green is like Thabo with less handles and a better jump-shot; very inconsistent, not mentally tough… And Lawson is a smaller Felton. For his great control and finishing ability and improved shot, he gets blown by on D and is not particularly strong in the passing lanes because he has no length and is not the quickest laterally.
If it takes giving up 2 picks to jump Charlotte in the draft, I’d give it up. (I’m still looking for info on how the workout went yesterday with he and T-Will @ the Bobcats) The Bulls can easily buy a late 1st rounder if they have another target in mind.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Aren't Henderson's transition weaknesses
setting off alarm bells?
VDN wanted to do defense last year to get the team out into transition to win games. It only started showing its effectiveness around the time Kirk returned.
12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.
by NBA Observer on Jun 23, 2009 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
His only transition weakness
is that he played at Duke. He’s strong and athletic enough to finish in transition. And if he doesn’t finish, he can draw fouls. I wrote somewhere else that he’s not as creative around the rim, but that just means less and-1’s. Where are these transition weaknesses you speak of? I guess NBA Obsorver /= NCAA Observer?
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's about Duke
Despite you saying Henderson is somehow unique among the former Dukies.
12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.
by NBA Observer on Jun 23, 2009 9:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It also =/= NBA Observer, either. Pay him no mind.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 23, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well put... I agree on most everything you said...
including the part about hating Duke:) Henderson would be a very good pick for the Bulls, IMO.
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
by smash! on Jun 23, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just in terms of size and athleticism,
He’s the exact same height, weight, standing reach, no step vertical, and max vertical as Dewayne Wade. He doesn’t have the body control, of course, or the handle yet, but this guy has a pretty high ceiling, in addition to being coachable and hard working.
Wouldn’t mind him a bit.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on Jun 23, 2009 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
How many people are vastly improving their body control and handle at 21 years old?
And, yeah, his combine numbers were oddly similar to Dwyane Wade’s, but they were also oddly similar to Joe Shipp’s, Eric Coley’s, Michel Morandais’s, and Denham Brown’s.
Maybe kingj41 is right that Henderson’s basketball IQ is off the charts. As a believer in the Deng/Battier types, that means something to me. But I don’t think he’s above NBA SG average at scoring, passing, or driving right now. Luol wasn’t either (still isn’t), but he’s been able to get away with it by finishing with great efficiency inside, rebounding above average, and being 6’8", which helped his defense translate.
Can Henderson make up for all his deficiencies too? In the other thread, Gar Foreman was saying “at the #16 pick, a rotation player is a very good pick”, and maybe that’s what he sees in Henderson – a sure thing rotation player. From that perspective, I’m not against the pick, I just don’t see how he complements Rose or earns a starting job with us down the line.
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's much more likely
he becomes a competent spot up shooter then improving his body control or ball handling to the extent that he’d be a star. But that’s all we really need him to do.
I see him as a super role-player: Raja Bell with more athleticism. Which isn’t a bad fit beside Rose. Right now, lack of three point shooting is a problem, but I think that will change, as it did with both Bell and Bruce Bowen. A three guard rotation of Rose, Gordon and Henderson…that could be just brutal.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on Jun 23, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I should have mentioned, as well,
that his size and athleticism are most appealing to me because they show he could be a great defender and finisher. I don’t see them as indicating he’d be a Wade like player.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on Jun 23, 2009 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What are his other deficiencies?
That he doesn’t have the body control of D-Wade?
His ball handling? He’s not gonna have to be a primary ball handler. True he likes to operate on the left side of the court and go right, but looks more than capable of developing more offensive moves with his explosiveness. And his jump shot has improved. Plus he can, if he has to, create his own shot.
And like I said, for all the other wing Dukie types… Reddick, Deng, Duhon, Battie… this guy knows how to attack and doesn’t rely solely on the perimeter game. He finishes strong, and if he doesn’t finish he’s likely at the FT line shooting just under 80% and very likely to improve there as he has over his career thus far. I’ll take a hard worker with upside vs. a guy like Mullens with upside, but no drive.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does he fit with Rose?
He didn’t have a great assist rate, which I’d like out of my SG, especially when Rose isn’t a great passer. He doesn’t shoot 3s well, which I think is absolutely necessary since Rose/Deng/Tyrus/Noah don’t. He was just an okay rebounder.
Henderson will be 22 later this year, what you see is pretty much what you’re going to see. And look at his games down the stretch…
Field goal shooting the last 10 games of this season:
6/17 FG vs. Florida State
4/11 FG vs. UNC
5/12 FG vs. BC
3/14 FG vs. Maryland
9/17 FG vs. Florida St
3/9 FG vs. Binghamton
7/21 FG vs. Texas
1/14 FG vs. Villanova
And that’s who we’re trading up to get?
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evidently I can't count to 10 games...
although the two games prior to that weren’t much better…
7/18 FG vs. Maryland
8/20 FG vs. Va Tech
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you watch college basketball?
Or do you look up stats all day?
Do you understand how defenses make adjustments? Do you understand how coaches ask players to focus on certain aspects of the team game? Do you understand how players get into foul trouble and try to work themselves into a groove? Do you understand how teammates affect stats? I don’t have a 100% recall on all the events of those games, but simply looking at a stat-line is useless information to me.
Understanding Duke’s offense, and Henderson’s role as a last second creator when the offense breaks down, a facilitator when the offense is stale, the inside-out offense, the extra pass…… you know, basketball related things, you would understand that his value is beyond the stat-line.
How many drives did he make, while kicking the ball out, only to have it passed ONE more time ‘a la’ a hockey assist that he doesn’t get credit for on a made basket? How many of those shots are forced, not because he’s trying to force them, but because his teammates are relying on him to shoot a last second shot? Stats aren’t an end-all decision maker for me. Did Lebron all of a sudden suck in the series against the Magic when his FG% went from 66% to 52% to 39% to 45% to 46% to 40%? All statistics are skewed.
I all ready noted that Henderson’s not a premier 3-pt shooter. It’s well known that he likes to go right on his 1st step. But these are things that he can improve. Jason Richardson is a guy that comes to mind as far as where I see his game could be offensively. But he’s way ahead of where Richardson was coming out of college. Would you want a defensive minded J-Rich on your roster for $1 mil+?
You’re not drafting Wade, Kobe, Lebron, Brandon Roy, a young McGrady, or a young Vince Carter in this draft at 11. That doesn’t mean he can’t turn into a solid contributor, but the odds are all ready against him at that draft slot. But the upside is there, and the drive to max his potential is there. Yes, I’d trade up to draft that with the 11th pick.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
Except a Jason Richardson who can’t shoot 3’s is practically useless. He’s an otherwise inefficient scorer, mediocre passer, average rebounder, and mediocre defender.
And just because all stats are skewed doesn’t mean stats are useless. Henderson wasn’t the only “bailout shooter” in the NCAA last year. The others didn’t have a problem shooting efficiently down the stretch, why did Henderson collapse?
He’s an average shooter and average ballhandler, so there’s a good chance he doesn’t develop into a 1st or 2nd scoring option in the NBA. So take away his scoring, and what do you have? 4.9 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.2 steals, 0.8 blocks, 2.2 turnovers. He better be damnnn good defensively…
How many players who didn’t dominate in college, weren’t on a team that reached the Final Four, and weren’t drafted top 10 been successful in the NBA? At some point, if all the numbers and GMs of the teams with the first ten picks are saying this guy’s just okay, that means more than “I cheered for UNC, we didn’t like facing him because of his intangibles.”
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You make no sense
Jason Richardson was a horrible shooter in college. He’s improved since coming into the league due to hard work. He’s all ready better than Richardson in every other category you listed.
How did he collapse? That doesn’t even say anything.
He’s not being drafted to be a 1st or 2nd scoring option. Think Courney Lee with better upside. And his turnovers will decrease because he won’t be asked to handle the ball as much. There’s a difference between handling to create and handling to score.
I’ll let you do the research on how many….. By the percentages you cannot pick out any group that is more successful than another. The odds of becoming an elite NBA player are very slim.
And my evaluation of him as a player is far removed from the fact I am a fan of UNC. I don’t even watch them exclusively. But instead of looking at stat sheets, I’ve seen how players contribute within the game. None of the GMs in the top 10 need a guy like Henderson. So, yes, they’d pass on him. That says more about their organization and roster than it says about him. You heard of Brook Lopez?
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Richard Jefferson is probably a better comparison than Gerald Henderson.
People still thought enough of Richardson for him to go in the top 5 and came out as a sophomore. Jefferson was 13th in that same draft, the Kwame Brown draft. And the book on Jefferson was similar to Henderson. Great athlete, but not a dominant player. No left hand, and inconsistent jumpshot. Didn’t do anything really well. That’s the kind of upside I see in Henderson. That’s the kind of career path Henderson follows if he works out.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Gerald Henderson turns out to be Richard Jefferson
then he’s a good value at 11 or 16. Although… don’t we already have one of those in John Salmons??? How’s THAT for a Henderson comparison?
by Rose Colored Goggles on Jun 23, 2009 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
except Jefferson was 3.25 inches taller
was much stronger, much more athletic, played on a far better team, was more efficient in limited opportunities, had better rebound and assist rates, shot a higher percentage from 2 and 3 and could actually go left in college.
If Henderson were a small forward, I’d feel better about him. Right now, I see him as a guy who will struggle because he does nothing particularly well. I think there are better options at the 11/16 pick.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
on second thought
its a fair comparison. Henderson just doesn’t do anything as well as Jefferson.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What doesn't he do as well as Jefferson
when Jefferson was in college? There are a couple of things Jefferson did better, but there were also things Jefferson did worse. Jefferson is a guy who never averaged more than 11 points per game in three years of college.
I don’t expect Henderson to ultimately be as good as Jefferson, but it’s certainly possible. And Jefferson wasn’t any better than Henderson in college.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but Jefferson played on a team that was stacked
and came within one game of winning the national championship. Arizona had 6 guys averaging in double figures that season. It hardly compares talent wise to what Duke was this season. With a higher scoring load, I have no doubt Jefferson could have averaged 16 pts a game in college.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jefferson was less efficient with a smaller scoring load than Henderson
How hard is that to understand?
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he had a higher fg% and higher 3pt%
He also had a higher rebound % and assist . Jefferson also had a higher true shooting % and efg. Henderson got to the line at a slightly higher rate (.4 to .36) and turned it over a little less (ast/to 1.14 to .9)
But yeah, keep on saying he was more efficient than Jefferson. I mean, without any proof.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think i had it right when I said it was a fair comparsion, but
Henderson doesn’t do anything as well as Jefferson.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's their
USG% RJ: 22.6 GH: 27.2
ORtg RJ: 100.4 GHL 110.7
3P% RJ: 34.4 GH: 33.6 on 32 more attempts
TS% RJ: 55.2 GH: 54.2
ORB% RJ: 7.1 GH: 4.7
DRB% RJ: 14.0 GH: 14.4
AST% RJ: 17.8 GH: 18.0
STL% RJ: 1.4 GH: 2.4
BLK% RJ: 2.8 GH: 2.4
TO% RJ: 26.3 GH: 15.4
Looks pretty similar to me. With Richard offensive rebounding better, which is expected. And Jefferson having a slightly higher 2P%, which is also expected with the uptempo style that Arizona played in comparison with Duke.
Henderson was similar in basically every category, and because Henderson turned the ball over a whole lot less than Jefferson he was the more efficient player both as juniors and for their careers, while using more possessions. That difference in turnover rate isn’t small. These are all facts.
The burden of proof wasn’t on me to show that Henderson was a better player than Jefferson, I only had to show that they were similar. You made the claims about Jefferson being clearly better than Henderson. Even if you look at their whole careers there isn’t much of a difference with Henderson taking better care of the ball and getting more steals, and Jefferson shooting a bit better being the only clear differences. There ORtgs are basically the same on a similar USG%.
Some me where Henderson doesn’t do anything as well as Jefferson.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most of what your argument isn't true.
He wasn’t any more efficient than Henderson in fewer opportunities than Henderson. Jefferson turned the ball over a lot more than Henderson in college.
There rebound and assist rates were almost exactly the same.
How is playing mediocre basketball on a far better team, a plus in Jefferson’s favor?
He was 3.25" taller, but only had a 0.5" advantage in standing reach over Henderson. Jefferson has a giant melon of a head.
Jefferson was stronger, but he wasn’t much more athletic. And he couldn’t go left in college any better than Henderson, Jefferson still doesn’t go left well after how many years in the NBA.
I look shit up before I make a comparison.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, touche mr. know it all
i looked it up too jerk. Jefferson shot a better fg% and 3pt %. He averaged more rebounds and assist in less minutes. He turned the ball over more but that is about it. For a 4th option on offense he provided as many numbers as Henderson did as the supposed 1st option on his team.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/arizona/richard-jefferson
Jefferson is stronger, bigger but just as quick as Henderson. He had a higher max vert by 3 inches and higher standing vert by 1.5 inches. So not only is he physically bigger, but he is capable of playing bigger than Henderson, your analysis of their respective head size notwithstanding…
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Richard-Jefferson-2978/
http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Gerald-Henderson-1042/
For two players who rely on their athleticism so much, the size, reach and jumping ability are a good barometer of how well each will do.
Stop being such a crybaby because someone dares to disagree with you.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ORtg is a better measure of efficiency than shooting percentages
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 23, 2009 8:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its all a moot point anyway because I wouldn't want Jefferson on this team
anyway, not as a shooting guard. You need guys capable of knocking down 3’s, especially at the 2 guard position for the Bulls. Henderson isn’t a good fit IMO.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right because Jefferson was such a bad fit with the point guard who couldn't shoot.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah because Deng shoots the ball just like Kittles
and Rose passes just as well as Kidd. I mean, its the same exact situation.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never said it was.
But, the idea that the SG next to Rose has to be a three pointer shooter is mostly a fallacy. A guy who will run the floor with Rose and finish at the basket has it’s uses with a player like Rose. And I’ve never come close to extolling the greatness of Rose as a passer. it’s a different situation. No one the Bulls draft is going to be making an immediate impact, which makes drafting guys to fit with Luol Deng kind of silly.
by Scotter on Jun 23, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
Jason Richardson was a horrible shooter in college.
Richardson made 40% of his threes his final year in college.
Think Courney Lee with better upside.
Courtney Lee made 40% of his threes his final year in college.
How did he collapse?
Are you arguing that shooting 11/44 in the tournament is a product of his role in the offense?
It’s fine to be skeptical of stats, but you seem to be disregarding them completely, putting “I saw him play, he’s good” in their place, which isn’t much of a case.
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
from three
Richardson made 8 more threes on the same number of attempts in each players final year of college.
And I meant Courtney Lee on the defensive end of the court, with a greater upside on the offensive end for more than just shooting 3s.
I’m not substituting anything for stats. They are a tool. I don’t throw them out the window. But using a small sample size and discounting some stats irks me. He shot twice as many FTs as Richardson. And you don’t want your SG to avg 5 rebounds a game? And 34% vs. 40% in the case of Richardson vs. Henderson w/ respect to the talent around the 2 is minor.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never meant to come off as a Henderson defender
I was just thinking that in the range of the 11th pick in the draft, he is one of the better talents there with what I think is a pretty good upside. Who would you draft over him if the Bulls were at 11?
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't trade up to the 11
I think there’s plenty of talent at #16. Terrence Williams, for one, fits a lot better with Rose – his passing numbers are impressive, and he’s worked on his 3pt shot and made it work. If we’re going for the sure thing over fit, I like Ty Lawson over Henderson.
I like keeping #26 too. We traded Thabo to get it, we don’t have a 2nd round pick, and I’d rather take two shots to land a rotation player than move up 5 spots to have just one.
by YaoPau on Jun 23, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My belief was
that they would still be able to buy a late 1st rounder or 2nd rounder if they had another target in mind. I think it makes sense to package picks to move up if your main target is attainable, and I was just going off of some other reports I’d read.
Ty Lawson isn’t going to get drafted (by the Bulls) unless he falls into the lower portion of the 1st round. Plus, I’d think there has to be no other PF type player on the board for them to consider that anyway.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Bobcats have reportedly promised TWill at #12.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton
by fundamentallysound on Jun 23, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
none of the teams in top 10 need Henderson?
than why are Derozan, Williams and Harden being slotted in ahead of him. Aren’t those guys going to play the 2 guard in the NBA as well?
Henderson has a lot of deficiencies in his game. He is not a good outside shooter, he is a poor ball handler and he is not particularly atheletic compared to other NBA guards. I think YaoPau is right. He better be a damn good defender coming in or he won’t be a valuable part of the rotation. No guy who only has a 2 dribble power move to the NBA is going to be terribly productive, no matter how good his first step is.
by Basketball Smurf on Jun 23, 2009 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Harden is a better player, period.
You have me there. But he and Henderson are still different types of players. Their game is different.
With regard to Derozan, I’ve seen him play less, and yes his athleticism is there, but I don’t see him being a better basketball player.
Williams is not exactly slotted above him. They’re about equal depending on what you need. If you want a better shooter, you take Henderson. If you want a better ball handler, you take Williams. Defensively, they are really close.
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
JRich was a 40% 3 point shooter as a sophomore at MSU
by Sports2 on Jun 23, 2009 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Aren't free throws
a form of shooting?
by kingj41 on Jun 23, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The one skill he needs to add is catch-and-shoot.
He’s really bad at that and that would be one of the most important attributes to have complementing Rose. If he can add a catch-and-shoot game to his arsenal and only moderately improve going to the left and passing, along with “normal development” of his other skills, he’d be a great, GREAT partner for Rose. Can he do that? Who knows. But if you think catching-and-shooting is one of the easiest skills to teach in the NBA (and some do), then I think he’d be your guy.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on Jun 23, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't really agree about the body control...
I watched him a lot over the last few years and never had that thought… he actually always impressed me with his athleticism and ability to penetrate, which I group with body control. Also, I don’t really remember him not having a handle… are you taking about him not going left much? Just curious…
What do I need to show fire for? I'm not a dragon. - Lou Pinella
by smash! on Jun 23, 2009 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Highlights of Gerald Henderson
The guy looks pretty solid to me…nice jumper, strong finisher at the rim, and good defense. He also busted Hansborough’s nose so he is not afraid to play defense in the paint…I think he will turn out to be a pretty good player. You can’t make the argument that just because other GMs passed on him then he is not going to be good. That is why there is a draft, it is a crapshoot. So many GMs would change their draft picks from previous years if they had a “do-over”…I would be willing to package two picks to move up and to get this guy.
by Bulldonger on Jun 23, 2009 9:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
