A few observations on this team

[billsin01]

So, like all here, I'm still trying to process exactly what has gone on this season and what happened to turn this thing around. I mean the broad story is most likely the series of moves that put White at the 3, Lydon at the 5, sticking with Gillon at PG and sliding battle in at the 2. But I felt like posting a few more subtle observations from this current five-game run and a few thoughts as we go forward.

White is on a pretty ridiculous run
A lot has been made of the five-game 20+ streak from AW3, but what I actually find the most interesting in many ways is how well he has played since the start of ACC play. Consider this:

Pre-conference (13 games): 14.7 ppg, .407 FG (61/150), .377 (3-pt)
Conference (12 games): 20.4 ppg 46% FG (81/178), 43% (3-pt)

That is pretty crazy. Now some of that is due to playing a few less minutes against some bad teams, but White was at 30 minutes in most of our games and even his shooting percentages have spiked. What's more, the North Florida game was the only game when he reached 20 pts in the pre-conference slate (though he was at 19 twice). In conference play he has the last five games but also put up 20+ against BC/Miami/Pitt to start conference play.

I can't really remember anyone outside of Melo and maybe Wallace not only maintaining but actually improving their numbers AND putting up 20+ ppg in conference play since the mid-90s. His numbers and his play have been really impressive.

White isn't alone in terms of impressive offense
I don't think this is our best team since 09-10 (at least not yet) but it's easily our most dangerous team in the past several seasons and maybe even dating back to 09-10. This team has eclipsed 70 points in 9 of 12 conference games and been at 99+ four times on the season (that's pretty rare as far as my memory goes). Individually, in addition to White's streak, we've seen Gillon put up 43 on 13 shots, score the last 13 points of the FSU win; Lydon who has a 29 point game and is shooting 50/42/82 on the year; Battle who has been decent generally but had a huge effort vs. UVA at a big time, putting up a crucial 23; and Thompson put up 12 in six minutes on Tuesday -- something we haven't had many big men capable of doing in a long time. Really intriguing mix of offensive talent.

More on Thompson
So I mentioned his game vs. Clemson, but Thompson has scored 216 points this season (25 games, 419 minutes). To put that in perspective, Fab's breakout sophomore season saw him score 234 points in 30 games and 763 minutes. For his career he had 311 points. So Thompson should easily eclipse that number by Fab (who was, by most accounts a decent offensive threat at C) and, if he can play enough defense to get himself some extended run (like he did last night), he could make a run at 300 or so by the end of the season. The kid has some warts but he can score some points.

Frank drives everyone nuts, but ...
So Howard has had a remarkably disappointing season but, IMO, if we have any shot to get away with playing him just get a breather here and there for Battle/Gillon is really important -- even more so as we approach the conference tourney and NCAA tourney. Can we squeeze 6-8 mins of decent basketball out of Frank each night? I don't know -- focus seems to be a major issue right now -- but I thought he was OK vs. Clemson and certainly better than the previous few games. We'll see.

Defensive lapses are still hurting this group
As bad as NC State was, I was hopeful going into Clemson that we had turned a bit of a corner defensively -- something like going from pretty bad to passable thanks to pretty solid performances vs. UVA and FSU. But then Clemson put up 81 on 54% shooting and 40+% from 3. Ouch. One thing I'd love to see them iron out -- even if our hopes of seeing really good defense are slim to none -- are the lapses that lead to wide open 3s with no one even attempting to close out. It didn't happen much against Clemson but we've had similar issues on the backline with teams overloading and no one calling it out. Would love to see those fairly simple things improve at some point.

Post touches
Really liked how often Lydon/Roberson/Thompson got the ball down low and were able to make something good happen. I love seeing Lydon around 12 shots (like he was in that game) and if Thompson's on the floor, he's worth getting involved as well. Roberson did a nice job catching and finishing.

A thought on the lure of the NBA
Was watching the fourth quarter of the OKC/Cleveland game last night. Grant got some good run for OKC which is great to see him in the crunch time rotation (at least for a night). I'm happy for him. But, at the same time, it was really interesting. He played the last 10 minutes. He got zero offensive touches. Not only that, they had him stand in the corner and essentially draw one man away from the other four Thunder players who were participating in the offense. For the game, he had two shots -- one of which came from his own offensive rebound.

So what's my point in saying this? To me, one of the misleading things about the NBA is that you develop more because you play basketball all the time (instead of going to the couple of classes these guys actually attend each week, I suppose) and against the best competition, etc. But, if you really look at it, most of the NBA's top players came in as polished players ready to score double-figures from the jump. Of the top 20 scorers in the league, 13 scored in double-figures their first season. One player was foreign (the Greek kid) and they fit into a little different category and he was in double-figures by his second year.

The remaining six are Kawhi Leonard (1st -- 15th), Lowry (1st rd -- 24th) , Paul George (1st -10th), C.J. McCollum (1st -- 10th), Jimmy Butler (1st -- 30th), and DeRozan (1st -- 9th). Of those, Butler and McCollum played four years in college while Leonard and George each had two productive years, DeRozan had one and Lowry had two solid years at Nova.

Anyway, point is of the best scorers (and arguably best players in the league) really only one of these guys 'developed' over the course of a few years in the NBA and that is Lowry. Everyone else either walked into the league scoring double-figures or got there by their second year. Or, in the case of Butler, it potentially took a little time but that was after four years of college ball.

So, to me, kids can leave whenever they want -- I'm not going to hold a grudge. But it's important to remember the NBA isn't really going to wait for you. If you want to use your athleticism to put together a career as a hustle/defense guy like Grant appears to be doing? Fine. If you want to collect a paycheck early and let the chips fall where they may? Fine. If you want to hope you can hang around the league for long enough to figure it out (like Lowry)? Fine. But if you really want to go to the league and become one of it's better players, the key is waiting to enter the league until you're ready to do that. It's worth noting when looking at a lot of our early entries (Fab/McCullough/Grant/Mali) that undoubtedly had a lot of development remaining. Hope they get there (the players still playing) but I'd say the odds are stacked significantly against it. Food for thought.

 

[iommi]

Epic post. What are your thoughts on Roberson?

 

[kuethstheman]

Concerning post touches - This team seems much more willing to get the ball to the post. Very few JB teams worked to get the ball inside. Even with Arinze, you had to pull teeth to get an entry pass. Love this team's willingness to get it inside!

 

[Dave85]

So, like all here, I'm still trying to process exactly what has gone on this season and what happened to turn this thing around. I mean the broad story is most likely the series of moves that put White at the 3, Lydon at the 5, sticking with Gillon at PG and sliding battle in at the 2. But I felt like posting a few more subtle observations from this current five-game run and a few thoughts as we go forward.

Nice post.

 

[pfister1]

So, to me, kids can leave whenever they want -- I'm not going to hold a grudge. But it's important to remember the NBA isn't really going to wait for you. If you want to use your athleticism to put together a career as a hustle/defense guy like Grant appears to be doing? Fine. If you want to collect a paycheck early and let the chips fall where they may? Fine. If you want to hope you can hang around the league for long enough to figure it out (like Lowry)? Fine. But if you really want to go to the league and become one of it's better players, the key is waiting to enter the league until you're ready to do that. It's worth noting when looking at a lot of our early entries (Fab/McCullough/Grant/Mali) that undoubtedly had a lot of development remaining. Hope they get there (the players still playing) but I'd say the odds are stacked significantly against it. Food for thought.

I am becoming more and more convinced that it is all pre-ordained. You are either talented enough to succeed in the NBA or not. A very few guys work themselves into position to be terrific NBA players. For that reason, and for most everyone, it is important to gauge when the most money is likely to be available for you. If it is available today, you go. If it isn't available today, you stick and try to improve your game and convince the talent scouts that you are worth throwing money at.

We always looks at the paths to success from the point of those have succeeded and try to extrapolate what guys who did not succeed should have done differently based on the success of those that did succeed. Unfortunately the component that can never be measured is the simple difference in talent.

Far, far, far more guys never make it than do. Would it matter if they took a different approach; left earlier, stayed longer, worked harder?? Probably not, they simply don't have the talent and ability of the guys that did make it.

 

[iommi]

Concerning post touches - This team seems much more willing to get the ball to the post. Very few JB teams worked to get the ball inside. Even with Arinze, you had to pull teeth to get an entry pass. Love this team's willingness to get it inside!

I think part of it is because we have so many perimeter threats that there are passing lanes inside. We have had shooting threats but not 4 on the floor at the same time.

 

[Bayside44]

Your point on NBA ready couldn't be more spot on.

The kids we've had that left early weren't unicorns. A team isn't gonna invest a few years in a kid like Malachi getting ready - the life span of their bosses isn't long enough. Plenty of game ready 2 guards to be had. Ditto a kid like CMAC who had finishing issues in college now playing somewhere on Long Island.

 

[Dave85]

Thompson is really good in the low post on offense. He's terrific. He just needs to get over the freshmen-itus on defense. Playing the back line of our 2-3 zone is hard to learn. If we make the tournament Thompson could really be a huge x-factor for us.

Same thing with Battle. His confidence level driving to the rim is getting better as he figures out what works and what doesn't at this level. He's playing with a lot effort. He just needs more experience. He too can be a huge x-factor for us if we make the tournament.

 

[iommi]

Thompson is really good in the low post on offense. He's terrific. He just needs to get over the freshmen-itus on defense. Playing the back line of our 2-3 zone is hard to learn. If we make the tournament Thompson could really be a huge x-factor for us.

Same thing with Battle. His confidence level driving to the rim is getting better as he figures out what works and what doesn't at this level. He's playing with a lot effort. He just needs more experience. He too can be a huge x-factor for us if we make the tournament.

Battle gets stuffed a lot more than he should. The floater he made against UVA is a step in the right direction. I'm shocked he's not using his left more around the rim. He's much more righty-dominant than he was in high school.

 

[sugrad68]

Nice post. I'm with you on players leaving early. I didn't think any of the players that left SU early were ready but it's difficult to turn down big money, especially if you aren't into the college life. Grant needed to work on his shot and put on some weight. McCullough? He played so little here that it was a crap shoot whether or not he would get into the pros and be decent. Mali? He had some great games at SU, some terrible games (0-11 from 3 in one game), and many decent games. Fab had so many incidents at Syracuse that leaving early was probably the best road to travel for him.

Some players stay in college for 4 (or 5) years and get to the NBA close to their maximum playing level. Malcolm Brogdon. Didn't even get drafted last year in the 1st round like Mali did. He is playing for Milwaukee, averaging 9.3 PPG in 52 games. Tough to turn down the money but in most cases additional years playing at the college level would be in the best interest of the player.

 

[Killdozer]

I am becoming more and more convinced that it is all pre-ordained. You are either talented enough to succeed in the NBA or not. A very few guys work themselves into position to be terrific NBA players. For that reason, and for most everyone, it is important to gauge when the most money is likely to be available for you. If it is available today, you go. If it isn't available today, you stick and try to improve your game and convince the talent scouts that you are worth throwing money at.

We always looks at the paths to success from the point of those have succeeded and try to extrapolate what guys who did not succeed should have done differently based on the success of those that did succeed. Unfortunately the component that can never be measured is the simple difference in talent.

Far, far, far more guys never make it than do. Would it matter if they took a different approach; left earlier, stayed longer, worked harder?? Probably not, they simply don't have the talent and ability of the guys that did make it.

So your post proves that most college players (95%) should stay and get their degree because the likely hood of them making it in the NBA are small. A college degree will last them a lifetime and be more valuable then the NBA minimum salary. Most of that money will be gone by the time they are 30 if they don't make it.

 

[SBU72]

So your post proves that most college players (95%) should stay and get their degree because the likely hood of them making it in the NBA are small. A college degree will last them a lifetime and be more valuable then the NBA minimum salary. Most of that money will be gone by the time they are 30 if they don't make it.

While you make sense, how many of the "jocks" who think that they have a shot at a pro career actually take course/major in something that will help them for a lifetime? If they think they will be pros, they will take what is easy/convenient to stay eligible. Maybe I'm being cynical, and I apologize if I am, but what degrees do Gillon and White have? DCII? How about Gbinije and Cooney? I pick these guys as they at 5th year guys who had to complete their degree to qualify for that 5th year. Could ask about Roberson or say Christmas. Now we do hear about the guy who has his degree in 3 years (BMK?) or like Nickelson form Bona who has a BS in Physics or Chemistry, but those guys are more the exception. I would really love to think that good b-ball players (guys who at least start if not star) put as much time in on school work as they do on the court but is it true?

 

[OttoinGrotto]

So what's my point in saying this? To me, one of the misleading things about the NBA is that you develop more because you play basketball all the time (instead of going to the couple of classes these guys actually attend each week, I suppose) and against the best competition, etc. But, if you really look at it, most of the NBA's top players came in as polished players ready to score double-figures from the jump. Of the top 20 scorers in the league, 13 scored in double-figures their first season. One player was foreign (the Greek kid) and they fit into a little different category and he was in double-figures by his second year.

The remaining six are Kawhi Leonard (1st -- 15th), Lowry (1st rd -- 24th) , Paul George (1st -10th), C.J. McCollum (1st -- 10th), Jimmy Butler (1st -- 30th), and DeRozan (1st -- 9th). Of those, Butler and McCollum played four years in college while Leonard and George each had two productive years, DeRozan had one and Lowry had two solid years at Nova.

Anyway, point is of the best scorers (and arguably best players in the league) really only one of these guys 'developed' over the course of a few years in the NBA and that is Lowry. Everyone else either walked into the league scoring double-figures or got there by their second year. Or, in the case of Butler, it potentially took a little time but that was after four years of college ball.

So, to me, kids can leave whenever they want -- I'm not going to hold a grudge. But it's important to remember the NBA isn't really going to wait for you. If you want to use your athleticism to put together a career as a hustle/defense guy like Grant appears to be doing? Fine. If you want to collect a paycheck early and let the chips fall where they may? Fine. If you want to hope you can hang around the league for long enough to figure it out (like Lowry)? Fine. But if you really want to go to the league and become one of it's better players, the key is waiting to enter the league until you're ready to do that. It's worth noting when looking at a lot of our early entries (Fab/McCullough/Grant/Mali) that undoubtedly had a lot of development remaining. Hope they get there (the players still playing) but I'd say the odds are stacked significantly against it. Food for thought.

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.

The odds are always stacked against a player making it in the NBA. Even more stacked against being one of the best in the NBA. Being "ready" has very little to do with it. There are significantly more NBA caliber players than there are in the NBA that we never see because the circumstances don't break their way.

Getting drafted in the first round is the best way to get the circumstances and time needed to convince the NBA that a player is just a cut above all the other guys good enough to be there. Take it if it's there.

And let's stop with this fallacy that the NBA doesn't care about player development. They absolutely do, and take pride in it, and the existence and evolution of the D-League proves it. There are 5 ways teams can get better - the coaching improves, they draft better talent, they trade for better talent, they sign better talent in free agency, and their current talent improves. Teams aren't abandoning 20% of the path to competitiveness. They're just not.

 

[AlaskaSU]

On 3 point defense, the problem is not so much about leaving guys wide open as it is about not being up in their grill. There is a fine line between good tight coverage and bad tight coverage that lets the opponent drive towards the hoop. Sometimes it is just a matter of inches. For Gillon, due to his height, he has to be in the opponent's grill. For Battle, he has to be quicker, to have closer coverage and still prevent the drive. He might not have the foot speed, and Gillon might have too much of a height disadvantage. We might have to live with weak 3 point defense. This is not a problem that will be solved with more familiarity with the zone. There are ways to compensate but they are not available to us; Cooney was an extraordinary energizer bunny, and Mali had a freakish pterodactyl wingspan.

 

[br801]

While you make sense, how many of the "jocks" who think that they have a shot at a pro career actually take course/major in something that will help them for a lifetime? If they think they will be pros, they will take what is easy/convenient to stay eligible. Maybe I'm being cynical, and I apologize if I am, but what degrees do Gillon and White have? DCII? How about Gbinije and Cooney? I pick these guys as they at 5th year guys who had to complete their degree to qualify for that 5th year. Could ask about Roberson or say Christmas. Now we do hear about the guy who has his degree in 3 years (BMK?) or like Nickelson form Bona who has a BS in Physics or Chemistry, but those guys are more the exception. I would really love to think that good b-ball players (guys who at least start if not star) put as much time in on school work as they do on the court but is it true?

Cooney and Gbinije were very good students, as I understand. Christmas was an outstanding standing student who completed his degree in three years. Coleman also completed his degree in under four years I believe.

 

[Flacusian]

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.

The odds are always stacked against a player making it in the NBA. Even more stacked against being one of the best in the NBA. Being "ready" has very little to do with it. There are significantly more NBA caliber players than there are in the NBA that we never see because the circumstances don't break their way.

Getting drafted in the first round is the best way to get the circumstances and time needed to convince the NBA that a player is just a cut above all the other guys good enough to be there. Take it if it's there.

And let's stop with this fallacy that the NBA doesn't care about player development. They absolutely do, and take pride in it, and the existence and evolution of the D-League proves it. There are 5 ways teams can get better - the coaching improves, they draft better talent, they trade for better talent, they sign better talent in free agency, and their current talent improves. Teams aren't abandoning 20% of the path to competitiveness. They're just not.

Ok Otto...so much for you being JB

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Ok Otto...so much for you being JB

Hehe

 

[Bayside44]

I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but this isn't one of them.

The odds are always stacked against a player making it in the NBA. Even more stacked against being one of the best in the NBA. Being "ready" has very little to do with it. There are significantly more NBA caliber players than there are in the NBA that we never see because the circumstances don't break their way.

Getting drafted in the first round is the best way to get the circumstances and time needed to convince the NBA that a player is just a cut above all the other guys good enough to be there. Take it if it's there.

And let's stop with this fallacy that the NBA doesn't care about player development. They absolutely do, and take pride in it, and the existence and evolution of the D-League proves it. There are 5 ways teams can get better - the coaching improves, they draft better talent, they trade for better talent, they sign better talent in free agency, and their current talent improves. Teams aren't abandoning 20% of the path to competitiveness. They're just not.

Being ready has everything to do with it. The league can always through a Jamal Crawford type out there who can score.

The guys we had leave aren't for the most part something unique -a KP, the Greek Freak, whatever. If a 20 something pick cannot hit an open jumper and play some D an NBA team will go out and get someone who can. That draft pick isn't some major loss.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Being ready has everything to do with it. The league can always through a Jamal Crawford type out there who can score.

The guys we had leave aren't for the most part something unique -a KP, the Greek Freak, whatever. If a 20 something pick cannot hit an open jumper and play some D an NBA team will go out and get someone who can. That draft pick isn't some major loss.

Jamal Crawford is number 6 all-time in made 3 pointers, so I directly challenge your assertion that the league can always throw a guy out like that that can score.

Of course a draft pick that doesn't pan out is a major loss.

There are a lot fewer guts that can both play D at that level and hit a jumper at that level than you think. The NBA is full of deficient players working on something and teams support it because even for those deficiencies, they still believe those guys are their best options or can get better.

 

[Bayside44]

Jamal Crawford is number 6 all-time in made 3 pointers, so I directly challenge your assertion that the league can always throw a guy out like that that can score.

Of course a draft pick that doesn't pan out is a major loss.

There are a lot fewer guts that can both play D at that level and hit a jumper at that level than you think. The NBA is full of deficient players working on something and teams support it because even for those deficiencies, they still believe those guys are their best options or can get better.

NBA teams drafting where our kids are going can afford to miss on a pick, and NBA teams aren't necessarily screwed if they have a bad draft (or two) like NFL teams are. Fine, remove Crawford, take Courtney Lee. Same idea.

 

[kirbivore]

I am becoming more and more convinced that it is all pre-ordained. You are either talented enough to succeed in the NBA or not. A very few guys work themselves into position to be terrific NBA players. For that reason, and for most everyone, it is important to gauge when the most money is likely to be available for you. If it is available today, you go. If it isn't available today, you stick and try to improve your game and convince the talent scouts that you are worth throwing money at.

We always looks at the paths to success from the point of those have succeeded and try to extrapolate what guys who did not succeed should have done differently based on the success of those that did succeed. Unfortunately the component that can never be measured is the simple difference in talent.

Far, far, far more guys never make it than do. Would it matter if they took a different approach; left earlier, stayed longer, worked harder?? Probably not, they simply don't have the talent and ability of the guys that did make it.

Totally agree. If you are in a position to trick a GM into taking you in the first round when your potential meter is still higher than your production level, do it.

 

[billsin01]

Far, far, far more guys never make it than do. Would it matter if they took a different approach; left earlier, stayed longer, worked harder?? Probably not, they simply don't have the talent and ability of the guys that did make it.

Agree with all of this other than the couple lines above. I think there is a very clear trend of guys succeeding at the next level after establishing themselves as, at the very least, really good, really consistent scorers at this level (think Andrew White vs. Malachi -- not in terms of nba ceiling but simply different levels of production). There are always going to be outliers but I feel like it would be extremely hard, for example, for Jeremi Grant to get the touches to be a consistent double-figure threat and anything other than option no. 5 at the nba level at this point. Does that change if he returns to Syracuse? I wouldn't be ridiculous enough to pretend to know. However, I can't help but think that with his athleticism and gifts, working hard and getting a ton of touches for 36-40 mins per night would have helped make him a better player. I doubt he's going to get that opportunity in the NBA.

It's a theory, but I would argue it holds true to a large extent. You need the inherent talent, yes, but while the nba wants to develop you, they aren't going to waste too much time developing you either.

 

[Waltdods]

Agree with all of this other than the couple lines above. I think there is a very clear trend of guys succeeding at the next level after establishing themselves as, at the very least, really good, really consistent scorers at this level (think Andrew White vs. Malachi -- not in terms of nba ceiling but simply different levels of production). There are always going to be outliers but I feel like it would be extremely hard, for example, for Jeremi Grant to get the touches to be a consistent double-figure threat and anything other than option no. 5 at the nba level at this point. Does that change if he returns to Syracuse? I wouldn't be ridiculous enough to pretend to know. However, I can't help but think that with his athleticism and gifts, working hard and getting a ton of touches for 36-40 mins per night would have helped make him a better player. I doubt he's going to get that opportunity in the NBA..

Jerami Grant played alongside CJ Fair, who did stick around for four years, improved very significantly (at least between years 1 and 3), and never played an NBA game. Grant left as a very unpolished player and started 52 games his second year in the NBA. He got nearly 1,000 shot attempts in his first two years. He has played as many minutes each year he has been in the NBA as he possibly could have by staying in college. (Assuming a college team plays 35 games a year, that's 1400 minutes a season. Grant played 1378 minutes as a rookie, 2063 as a second-year guy, and is on pace for something like 1450 minutes this year.)

Many kids who do all the right things, and stick around for 4 years and turn into great college players never make an impact in the NBA. Syracuse fans should know this better than anyone - in recent years, we have Mike Gbinje, Rakeem Christmas, CJ Fair, Kris Joseph. Going back, John Wallace left college as maybe the best player in a very loaded season for the NCAA. It didn't make him any better of an NBA player. Hakim stuck around as a role player in the NBA, but being BE POY didn't make him an NBA star either. (Grant and Warrick are perhaps similarly talented guys, and seem very likely to have similar careers, despite taking opposite approaches on this point.)

The thing is that there just aren't a lot of NBA jobs, and there are even fewer NBA stars. Almost everyone is going to fail at getting there. If you take a group of players - in your example, guys who left Syracuse early - you are inevitably going to find that most of that group fails. But that will be true of any group you pick.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Jerami Grant played alongside CJ Fair, who did stick around for four years, improved very significantly (at least between years 1 and 3), and never played an NBA game. Grant left as a very unpolished player and started 52 games his second year in the NBA. He got nearly 1,000 shot attempts in his first two years. He has played as many minutes each year he has been in the NBA as he possibly could have by staying in college. (Assuming a college team plays 35 games a year, that's 1400 minutes a season. Grant played 1378 minutes as a rookie, 2063 as a second-year guy, and is on pace for something like 1450 minutes this year.)

Many kids who do all the right things, and stick around for 4 years and turn into great college players never make an impact in the NBA. Syracuse fans should know this better than anyone - in recent years, we have Mike Gbinje, Rakeem Christmas, CJ Fair, Kris Joseph. Going back, John Wallace left college as maybe the best player in a very loaded season for the NCAA. It didn't make him any better of an NBA player. Hakim stuck around as a role player in the NBA, but being BE POY didn't make him an NBA star either. (Grant and Warrick are perhaps similarly talented guys, and seem very likely to have similar careers, despite taking opposite approaches on this point.)

The thing is that there just aren't a lot of NBA jobs, and there are even fewer NBA stars. Almost everyone is going to fail at getting there. If you take a group of players - in your example, guys who left Syracuse early - you are inevitably going to find that most of that group fails. But that will be true of any group you pick.

There are plenty (well, maybe not plenty, but my point is the same) of guys out there who can definitely contribute to an NBA team, but there are just so many limited spots and the competition is crazy

 

[Cusefan0307]

I read somewhere and I can't remember where, but only 8 current starting 2 guards in the NBA were lottery picks. That seems crazy to me.