Edited by godtomsatan, 21 March 2012 - 05:35 AM.
Brittney Griner
Started by godtomsatan, Mar 21 2012 05:32 AM
9 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:32 AM
This chick is a bean pole and has been dominating women's college basketball practically since she started at Baylor two years ago. Here, she demonstrates she's kind of a badass. 23 ppg, 9.2 rebs, and 5+ blocks per game. She's 208, a little slight, but shoot, I've seen a lot worse dudes running around in the field of 64 on the men's side.
#2
Posted 21 March 2012 - 01:43 PM
She wouldn't even make a decent D-1 program.
#4
Posted 27 March 2012 - 03:50 PM
you said you had seen dudes in the Field of 64 that was worse. I'm saying no they are better than she is.
#5
Posted 27 March 2012 - 06:07 PM
chiefjay, on 27 March 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:
you said you had seen dudes in the Field of 64 that was worse. I'm saying no they are better than she is.
I'm saying that as far as women players go. She's the first one I've ever seen play that I'm pretty sure could be a factor at the highest level of high school boys basketball.
And yes, there have been players in the field of 64 that don't have her fundamentals down, and given the fact that she lacks the upper body strength, I wouldn't expect her to be able to last long against most players with any kind of length.
She's still really fun to watch dominate at the level she plays at.
#6
Posted 28 March 2012 - 11:01 AM
godtomsatan, on 27 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:
I'm saying that as far as women players go. She's the first one I've ever seen play that I'm pretty sure could be a factor at the highest level of high school boys basketball.
And yes, there have been players in the field of 64 that don't have her fundamentals down, and given the fact that she lacks the upper body strength, I wouldn't expect her to be able to last long against most players with any kind of length.
She's still really fun to watch dominate at the level she plays at.
And yes, there have been players in the field of 64 that don't have her fundamentals down, and given the fact that she lacks the upper body strength, I wouldn't expect her to be able to last long against most players with any kind of length.
She's still really fun to watch dominate at the level she plays at.
True, I would throw a few others in that category and possibly slightly above her granted they are different type players.. Taurasi, Maya Moore, Miller (forget her first name), a recent UCONN guard not Moore who's name is also slipping my mind and then a few from the 80's / 90's.
#7
Posted 28 March 2012 - 01:50 PM
Cheryl Miller
Lynette Woodward
Lynette Woodward
#8
Posted 28 March 2012 - 02:00 PM
chiefjay, on 28 March 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:
True, I would throw a few others in that category and possibly slightly above her granted they are different type players.. Taurasi, Maya Moore, Miller (forget her first name), a recent UCONN guard not Moore who's name is also slipping my mind and then a few from the 80's / 90's.
Cheryl Miller. She ruled. Played at USC in the mid-80s. She's Reggie Miller's sister.
#9
Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:26 PM
Brittney Griner is a completely different player than any of those previously listed. She's 6-8 and can move for godssakes.
#10
Posted 28 March 2012 - 03:51 PM
I guess that's where I disagree a bit. I don't think she moves that well, granted I don't watch many women's games, just a few minutes here and there. I only think she's a bit more athletic and lengthy than a Lobo or the Paris twins. That little bit is adds a lot though granted to her defensive game and post game.
I guess I just prefer the athleticism from the other 2's and 3's that have been discussed over Greiner. My thought is they would compete more at a men's level than BG.
I guess I just prefer the athleticism from the other 2's and 3's that have been discussed over Greiner. My thought is they would compete more at a men's level than BG.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users












