Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RF2044, post: 1704552, member: 40"]
Kind of.   ; )     I don't think they necessarily belong on the list, because I think both of those players were significant contributors early on in their careers--i.e., by sophomore year, and that improvement up their respective developmental curves wasn't as steep for them [U]from that point[/U] as it was for a few other players that I think are better examples.  Simple as that.  This is a discussion board, and others are free to express different opinions.

In Andy's case [in particular], I think he was better earlier in his career than many others apparently do.  I wasn't as surprised by his senior year, because I believed that he could do many of the things that he showed--he was just behind Flynn and Devendorf and Harris through his junior year.  When he got a chance to play 35+, he thrived.

Rick was a guy who played at a big time high school program, and was ready to contribute as a backup even his freshman year [which is more than you can say of a lot of bigs].  He got a lot better over the course of his career, like most bigs do, but I don't think it was as big of a jump as Etan, Seikaly, or Rak.

I don't dispute that Andy / Rick improved, and were high major players by the end of their careers.  In this type of discussion, I think they'd both garner "honorable mention" b/c a few others showed more dramatic improvement.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?